COP15: Tom Friedman Rails Against Climate Change Deniers

@Mark Sullivan In your first sentence you rail against the imprudence of using emotionally charged monikers, then in the very next sentence you brandish ones of your own by referring to Elites and THE media. You're right to fight against broad, unhelpful terms when discussing complex topics, but you fail to follow your own advice.

Watching Friedman hype the climate change boogeyman for the enrichment of the global banking cartels via carbon taxes is about as interesting as watching Karl Rove hype the terrorism boogeyman for the enrichment of global banking cartels via war taxes. Condé Nast CEO Samuel Newhouse earned his 6.6 billion dollars by subtlety exploiting the desperate yearning of the petty bourgeoisie to be intellectually fashionable for the benefit of the banking cartels. If his errand boy employee Blaise Zerega expects to achieve the same with FORA.TV, he needs to lose the ham-fisted propaganda and get more sophisticated. American tax livestock are beginning to doubt the boogeymen are as dangerous as Rove and Zerega say, and they are beginning to notice that they outnumber the farmers patrolling the fences a million to one. FORA can do better than this.

We can get off most fossil fuels within 20-30 years if we put a concerted effort into solar, wind, fuel cells, electric cars, algae biofuels, and new nuclear technologies. We also need a new national smart power grid to move electricity. We can use a carbon tax on fossil fuels to pay for it, and it'll provide millions of JOBS that can't be exported. Europe & China are ALREADY doing this and America will lose out in future green energy technologies, if we don't. We owe it to our grandchildren.

Tom Friedman is speaking outside his area of study? Sad to to him resort to such methods? Sad Sad Sad What Science? If CO2 goes up and temperatures go down then what? Explain 1940 to 1970 or 1990 to 2010 or if 600 gigatones of CO2 come from nature every year and 6 from man made oil, gas, coal then only CO2 from humans is the problem?? Tom what is the science of the atmospheric CO2 life cycle? You do not know? Then why do you opine??? I agree to the science of clean cheap energy but AGW! give me a break

WHAT COOLING? A lot of deniers claim the earth has been cooling the last ten years. One of their own is helping to debunk that myth. UAH (The University of Alabama, Huntsville)climate center is run by Dr. John Christy, a well known AGW denier. March was the HOTTEST March in the UAH 32 year satellite record. Global temperatures for February = 2nd WARMEST February in 32 years. Global Temperatures for JANUARY = the HOTTEST January for UAH in 32 years.

The term, "Climate Change Deniers," is disgusting, silly and purely political and ought not be used by any intelligent person. Elites and the media have tried their best to help we mere citizens about the science. We understand the science. We also understand that as each day passes, we learn that more and more of this "science" is fraudulent. The actual data do not match the models' predictions of impending catastrophe. The "environmental movement" is totally iognorant to the scope and cost of what they are asking the United States to do. We have had wind and solar technologies for decades. They exist only because they are subsidized by government. They are simply too expensive, inefficient and incapable of ever providing more than a tiny fraction of the energy a large, industrial economy needs as well as what emerging nations need to continue to grow out of poverty. As long as oil, natural gas and coal are abundant and inexpensive, as well as immediately usable due to the sophisticated, efficient infrastructure we have for exploring, retrieving and getting to market quickly and most importantly, for the end consumer to use, "green" technologies will rely on government subsidy to exist and will never be more than a tiny part of our energy picture. That is simple economics my friend - capital flows where it is used most efficiently. The only thing that can interfere with the free market and fefficient use of capital is government coercion, which we have too much of already. The real question is, whether man is causing the planet to warm at all. If so, by how much and at what rate, and what adaptations can we make without keeping the poorest citizens of the world poor and without destroying the world's economy. The fact of the matter is, there is no scientific proof that man is causing "global warming," (or is it "climate change," now that we know the earth is not warming at all presently?) There is also no proof that human generated CO2 is causing the earth to warm. In fact there are plenty of studies that show warming precedes CO2 increases. I personally have never bought the man made global warming idea. It just does not make any sense. It assumes a few things I see as impossible. I do not believe it is possible to measure the earth's temperature. I do not believe CO2 is pollution. It is as essential for life as oxygen. No CO2 - no life, PERIOD. This interview was disappointing - Friedman is usually a little more common sensical.

I agree with Mr. Friedman that we cannot expect much from Copenhagen or its successors in the way of real, effective action. But his vision of the United States being a leader in clean tech, transforming our economy, making us more secure, and grounding a new era of prosperity in the process (and incidentally solving the climate crisis) is inspiring. Let's do this! Let's not get surpassed by the Chinese in these huge new business opportunities. Still, the meeting focused the world's attention on the issues. .

http://fora.tv/2009/12/17/FORAtv_Exc...15#fullprogram