So..Cavuto's having this student on for the interview must be part of the "new" Fox approach to climate change, as announced by Mr. Murdoch last week?

I think, as a matter of course, by definition, attendance is mandatory for ALL classes at ALL schools. I've never encountered a professor who said attendance is optional. Is Cavuto encouraging people to cut?

Ha Ha You know the one aspect of global warming that bothers me is that we (humans) are taking the blame for almost all of it. Don't you think that, in it self is elitism? To think that we are controling the planet's temperature? Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that we don't have something to do with it, but who's to say that the earth isn't just warming and we are assisting in the pace?
Colbert is right when he talks about education being a double edged sword, he just takes it to the extreme. In order to educate though, we must consider all possibilities so that we can tackle the closed minded from both their perspective and ours.
This is the problem with segregating ideas, we can not see beyond our own opinions.
Perfect example: RELIGION.

Ha Ha You know the one aspect of global warming that bothers me is that we (humans) are taking the blame for almost all of it. Don't you think that, in it self is elitism? To think that we are controling the planet's temperature? Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that we don't have something to do with it, but who's to say that the earth isn't just warming and we are assisting in the pace?
Colbert is right when he talks about education being a double edged sword, he just takes it to the extreme. In order to educate though, we must consider all possibilities so that we can tackle the closed minded from both their perspective and ours.
This is the problem with segregating ideas, we can not see beyond our own opinions.
Perfect example: RELIGION.

I believe the current idea is that the planet emits 152 billion tons of CO2 on its own, and it collects 157 on its own, making for a net loss of 5. Humans emit about 7 billion tons each year, and that tips the balance to 2 billion more tons a year net. Of course, this is all from memory of an article in a magazine. People who know what they're talking about can correct me.

Don't you think that, in it self is elitism? To think that we are controling the planet's temperature?

No.

"Don't you think that, in it self is elitism? To think that we are controling the planet's temperature?"

Why would it be? We're already changing the planet in so many other ways, and could do it even more if we wanted..

I mean, every day we take about 85 million barrels of oil from the Earth's crust and send its carbon into the atmosphere, and I'm not even counting all the coal and natural gas. Doing something on that scale will obviously affect a planet's atmosphere.

You've probably heard the thing about how the Earth's atmosphere is about as thick as a coat of paint over a billard ball..

"In order to educate though, we must consider all possibilities so that we can tackle the closed minded from both their perspective and ours. "

Absolutely, but not all those possibilites are as valid. Maybe in art appreciation you can be very subjective, but when it comes to science, you have to go with the best science you have. You don't teach neurology side by side with phrenology, and physics side by side with magic.

Climate scientists spend their days studying the problem. I always find if funny when people who never checked the real hard science start to say stuff like "oh, it must be the sun! a natural cycle!", as if that hadn't been looked into..

I love Stephen Colbert.

I agree with you anonymous on almost everything you say. We ARE effecting the ecosystem negatively, I am not denying that at all.
All scientific data is based off of observations adorned with probabilities. When you start to statistically analyze gathered data to comprehend climate change what you end up with is an enormous statisitical compolation. Everything is based on probability, nothing is exact, therefore, with thousands upon thousands of entries you achieve greater accuracy. We have only recently (within the past 100 or so years) have had the capability of capturing that much data. Now compare that to the age of the planet. That is all I am saying. Our existance is but a blip. Now I know that they test ancient ice to predict previous temperatures etc, but that analysis is nothing but an estimate. Accuracy is a major problem in such tests, just think about trying to boil down a 100 years into a standardized climatization category which includes (temperature, precip, wind speeds, barometric readings, etc......)

We know so little about the past when compared to our blip in the overall age of the planet.

We thrive to save animals, plants, and keep the planet the way it was before we were here. In all reality, our survival is why we need to do this. The planet will respond to whatever we give it and I highly doubt we will ever destroy all life. We will probably just destroy ourselves and take alot of life with us. But the earth will respond and bring itself back to equilibrium.....just like we expect through our own knowledge.
Energy can not be created or destroyed - just transformed. All that ancient energy (fossil fuels) that we use came from a control volume (the earth). In other words.....the earth can handle it, the current ecosystem can't....we can't. We will not easily destroy the planet, just alot of life. But it will mostly likely return in millions of years.....different. If you believe in evolution then then you can relate to what I am saying. I want to save the current ecosystem so that our children can survive along with all the currently existing animals. Balance is the search. Who is in control? Ask yourself that next time you watch the weather channel.

We may pump thousands of pounds of CO2, SVOC's etc. and we KNOW that is bad, but what it means for the future is up for grabs in my mind. Time will tell. Limiting will help, but we are not in control.

we cant forget that there is a lot more to this story than just emitting CO2, our population is exploding, other species of living creatures are going extinct at an alarming rate, we are tainting the land, water and air, and destroying habitat at an incredible level.

We are easily the destroyers of our planet.

ps. well said Anonymous

"We may pump thousands of pounds of CO2, SVOC's etc. and we KNOW that is bad, but what it means for the future is up for grabs in my mind."

Since you're not a scientist, really, no one is really worried about what's up for grabs in your mind. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

If you deny anthropogenic global warming, but you think everyone can make up their minds about it independently, regardless of world scientific opinion, why the heck do you bother to state your ideas in public?

Despite your supposed noncommital to either side on the issue, the fact is you ARE making an affirmative effort to influence people, so they will doubt anthropogenic global warming.

I'm afraid that ship has sailed. All that's left to do is mitigate it as best we can, and hold accountable those people and organizations who have been intentionally trying to mislead the public and subvert scientific integrity.

"Since you're not a scientist, really, no one is really worried about what's up for grabs in your mind. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. "

What do you deem scientific? Political agenda drives much of the "global warming" trend. It does not take a scientist to figure that out.

The simple fact that Al Gore is building a mansion that will consume more electricity in a month then an average american household in a year gives his motives an eyebrow raise. I now know he is making potential "green" changes, but I don't understand 20 rooms?

read: http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

As far a scientist, I am currently working on alternative energy systems (mainly biomass coversion). I have two degrees (engineering), but I do not consider myself an expert in global warming. I have to study emissions and offsets, but I don't consider that in anyway understanding the chemical conversion processes of the atmosphere or the planet. Everything is relative.

If you deny anthropogenic global warming, but you think everyone can make up their minds about it independently, regardless of world scientific opinion, why the heck do you bother to state your ideas in public?

First of all I do not deny the fact that we (human "progress") play a significant part in the global warming arena. If you would actually read deeper into how and why scientists have made their conclusions on global warming then you would see many "assumptions" and "estimations".

I hold high reguard to all who study and track the climate. We are all in debt to them because they will lead us into a better future of simplicity, efficiency, and closer relationships to nature.

I would just like everyone to see beyond CO2 and fixate on simplicity. What do you need to survive? If everyone can base their life on pure survival, not over consumption, huge mansions, fancy cars, and electronic bullshit we would venture back upon the give take relationship that allowed all other species to survive and evolve of hundreds of thousands of years. Unlike our future.

So decrease pollution? This might also interest you. You have to looker deeper then the surface, I know it might be hard for you, but read this also:
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=17953

Then tell me: What makes a scientist? "Balloons carrying sulfates and firing them at the atmosphere"?--nobel prize winning scientist

Please respond to these.