Maher VIDEO: Hey climate change deniers: "What are we gonna develop that replaces Iowa?" Oceans, marine life, seafood industry now at risk.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Bill McKibben: "What are we gonna develop that replaces Iowa?"

Maher: "I never understand why people with kids feel that way... You can stick your head in the sand all you want."

 Will Cain: "I don't think the science is settled."

Maher: "'In the Bible...' Now that I know that your sourcing this back to the old book of Jewish fairy tales, I am SO down with whatever's gonna come out of your mouth..."

McKibben to Mark Foley: "...Every month for the last 330 it's been warmer than it was in the last century. Saying on this day in Florida it was cooler than that day in Chicago doesn't even begin to be an argument."

:

Bill McKibben appears on Real Time with Bill Maher, Oct 5-2012.
Fox News's Frank Luntz and Ex-Republican Rep Mark Foley try to put forth some sort of logical sounding arguments to McKibben, but look like children when Maher and McKibben put them squarely in their place. Children vs Adults here. Global Warming is a crisis unequaled in human history.

A new report by the Organization DARA says 100 Million deaths could be caused by Global Warming by 2030.

As I watched Will Cain and Mark Foley's completely meaningless arguments, as I watched their feeble attempts to outargue Bill McKibben of all people, I had to laugh. But this is so damned serious, climate change is such an enormous threat, I also have to cry as I observe those who live in their own profits-over-people world of denial insist on making the planet unsafe for the rest of us, and for their own children.

How can they continue to ignore what is visibly, tangibly happening around them?

Via the L.A. Times:

"There's no debating it," said Barton, who manages Whiskey Creek, which supplies three-quarters of the oyster seed to independent shellfish farms from Washington to California. "We're changing the chemistry of the oceans."

Rising acidity doesn't just imperil the West Coast's $110-million oyster industry. It ultimately will threaten other marine animals, the seafood industry and even the health of humans who eat affected shellfish, scientists say.

The world's oceans have become 30% more acidic since the Industrial Revolution began more than two centuries ago. In that time, the seas have absorbed 500 billion tons of carbon dioxide that has built up in the atmosphere, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels. [...]

By the end of the century, said French biological oceanographer Jean-Pierre Gattuso, "The oceans will become hot, sour and breathless."... [S]cientists say the only sure way to avoid the worst is to significantly reduce carbon emissions. [...]

At extremely high levels of acidity, laboratory experiments show, seawater no longer provides this material and indeed . [...]can cause existing shells of corals, snails and other animals to dissolve

[I]ncreasing acidity could melt away the bottom rungs of the food chain, such as pteropods, the button-sized marine snails that nourish salmon and other fish.

The chemical changes are then projected to spread to temperate waters. [...] [A]cidified waters trigger these microscopic plants to produce more toxins that contaminate clams and mussels. These shellfish, in turn, can sicken or kill humans who eat them.

Later this century, the rising acidity is projected to reach tropical waters. That will put coral reefs, already in peril, under even more pressure.... For island nations, the disappearance of coral reefs could prove disastrous.

You were saying, Mr. Foley, Mr. Cain?

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare
  • phillipgottschalk

    I never understand the argument. while I believe that climate change is occurring I do not understand the deniers position. It appears to be illogical. Their argument is based on "faith" and probably an array of issues but is illogical. Why this has not been pointed out is discouraging. Let me explain. At present we have two arguments, climate change vs. Deniers. If the climate change argument wins we are still with the position climate change or no climate change. Since, assuming, the climate change community won the argument if climate change existed the US would make a new industry, produce jobs, better health, and most importantly we remove ourselves from the middle east and Asia for energy resources etc. If the climate change argument wins and climate change does not exist all the benefits would still exists. If the climate change deniers win the argument and climate change does not exists non of the benefits are per sued and the best that can happen is the deniers can say "I was right". But if the deniers win the argument and climate change exists, mankind is screwed, it app eras that there is no gain, except saying" I was right" to the deniers argument.

  • wstockwin

    The idea of a federal government based on the bible is completely contrary to this country's constitution, and legislators basing their policy decisions on that "book of jewish fairy tales" to use Maher's happy phrase, are betraying their oath to uphold and defend that constitution.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-Perkins/100003670052110 Matt Perkins

     And then God died, killed off by the Enlightenment and rational thought.

  • mmdccbslm

     that implies heat, don't it? and you can't get these fools to take their fingers out of their ears unless it's to stick their heads into the sand.

  • Marina Delune

    What God actually said to  Noah was that the next time around he'd use fire to destroy the world.