George Carlin anyone? All he needed was the black turtleneck and the pony tail.

All the same, I agreed with every word.

George Carlin turned me off when he said he didn't vote and couldn't care less. Great message to send. Don't think he really cares much about anything beyond bodily functions.

I totally missed this special and hope TBS will repeat it.

Bd http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/nobush

Re: RD's comments. I like Bill Maher, I think he's a good comedian, but with all due respect to him, George Carlin's way better.

I wouldn't expect Carlin to do a show of exactly that sort though because he's always said he's pessimistic about the survival of the human race as a whole.

BTW, he's completely full of crap about the oxygen content in the air. See the Wikipedia entry. If you're going to criticise conservatives for doing bad science, sort your own facts out first.

I am as confused as Maher is about all of this. Those who complain about radical environmentalists and argue that global warming is a natural phenomenon, so hey, don't worry, no problem, ignore what the majority of scientists say, and instead continue to point to the disinformation used by the politically motivated.

I can understand why greedy politicians and those with corporate interests argue against global warming concerns, but why do ordinary people allow themselves to fall for this propaganda? For some reason they prefer not to want to believe what the most reputable scientists have to say. Why? Maybe they just want to live for the moment and don't give a damn what future generations will have to put up with. But then the governmental and corporate propaganda machine is very powerful.

Corporations undermining action on global warming Excerpt "Corporations and their front groups have utilised a handful of dissident scientists to cast doubt on the likelihood of adverse impacts arising from global warming. These scientists, who oppose the general scientific consensus on global warming, have had their voices greatly amplified by fossil-fuel interests.

Such scientists do not disclose their funding sources when talking to the media or before government hearings. One example is Patrick Michaels. Generally described in the media as being from the University of Virginia, Michaels edits the World Climate Report, which is funded by Western Fuels Association (a consortium of coal interests) and associated companies"

Tim,

While it is important to get the facts straight. If it were a requirement to be mistake free in order to criticize no criticism would ever take place. To think otherwise is just a stupid argument.

I didn't mean to imply they shipped Carlin's DNA off to Scotland and cloned him and Bill Maher is the product.

I just found his angst filled routine similar to Carlins. As for Georgie not voting, well, he's a very cynical guy. On one side, you have the republicans, a notorious pack of liars in bed with big business, and on the other, a group of liars backed by big business. Nader for president in 2024!!!

I just imagine the field day Bill Hicks would have these days. Sad.

Sorry for the double

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420.stm

I think that global warming is real and the United States should try to do something about it. But there are a lot of silly things people say about the issue. In many ways it becomes a cheap America-bashing party. The United States does indeed send up the most greenhouse gases per person. But we also get a lot of well-being out of that pollution. The marginal dollar added to our economy is much cleaner than Chinese, Brazilian or Indian dollars. Most of the new emissions in the next decades are going to come to those countries, not the developed world. So limiting poor countries' emissions is probably a crucial part of the solution. But this means limiting their economic development--a much more sticky ethical issue than limiting ours.

A second item is that the American left will talk all day about the end but say nothing about the means. A sensible U.S. energy policy, not to mention climate change policy, would necessarily include a $1-3 per gallon federal gas tax (this has nothing to do with left and right--plenty of more neo-liberal types have advocated higher gas taxes in America). Any other means of responding to the problem (like our current regime of mandates to car companies) is just inefficient and ineffective. But no one will touch that with a ten foot pole. I'm not watching the Earth to America special, but I wonder how often people mention gas taxes. My bet is not very much. So how do you want to implement Kyoto, Maher? It's easy to make fun of Bush for ignoring climate change, but apparently not so easy to come out in favor of gas taxes. And these people aren't even running for office--and we say the Democrats (who can lose their jobs to right wingers if they advocate something unpopular) don't have any guts?

There is plenty of international posturing as well. Europe has a more responsible climate change policy, but few European countries have actually decreased emissions in the last decade (even with zero population growth). Germany did it only because they've been shutting down old GDR factories. But Germans love their cars more than Americans do (even if they do use them more responsibly) and those reductions are unlikely to continue.

http://comedy.aol.com/tcf.html?defaultItem=20

there, you can watch the whole show, or clips of comedians.

The joke about Kyoto was funny symbolically because not only does Bush have no policy in regards to global warming, he isn't planning on doing anything. He simply said Kyoto is bad for America's economy and is unfair because it excludes developing nations. He points out that it's flawed, and then just moves on.

Also, Bill Maher is an advocate for higher gas taxes.

"Also, Bill Maher is an advocate for higher gas taxes."

Good to hear--I'll make sure I don't accuse him of the contrary anymore.

The gas tax should be high...Very high, like 400% to fund the research/build up of infrastructure the new renewable fuel source is going to need to make any impact what so ever. And indeed I would love to see how Smug the H2 drivers are then...(do they all seem to have those mirrored wrap around shades and drive alone?)

I use gas ...just like everyone else - I do try to limit it but you can only do so much when your options are limited.

Bill may have made a slim mistep about the historical O2 content of earths atmosphere numerically, However he is not wrong about it being higher in prehisoric ages..Its one of the reasons the bugs were so big.

Anyway...We have a long road ahead of us.

dende blogger:

"Most of the new emissions in the next decades are going to come to those countries, not the developed world. So limiting poor countries' emissions is probably a crucial part of the solution."

That's right, and that's exactly what is going to happen. After w e had our party, spent our gas, drove our SUV's, drilled in Alaska and got out of nature as much as we could - we will finally get around to hybrid cars and higher gas taxes. We won't lose much comfort by doing it, on the contrary, we will do good business with new technologies.

But -

If the developping countries think t h e y will have their turn now, they're gonna be in for a sore disappointment. No sir, mr chinese-african-south american guy, you won't pollute this precious world our ours any longer! And if you don't stop we'll gonna invade and occupy your rain forests and tariff your cars to death!

That's already the attitude behind it, and it stinks almost as badly as exhaust fumes. As soon as they'll get wet feet at Kennebunkport, it's gonna be Republicans fighting "the South's evil pollution of God's earth", just wait and see.

The moment the US or EU or whatever country gets a government which actually is going to work on this issue hard. i.e. grow gas prices by 400%, drastic environmental measures etc., at that moment riots will happen, the government will be overthrown or new elections be sought to reverse these actions. John Doe in the street is not going to accept it, scientific prove my ass, i ride my car and i can still breathe, i see no problem. So actually, as usual, nothing is going to happen, especially not with a not well informed population.

No government will raise gas taxes 400 percent, and not because of John Doe but because of the fact that this would be insane. But the Europeans actually do raise taxes, by 10, by 20, by 30 percent. And it starts to work.

And believe me, John Doe will d e m a n d that something happens when the weather will wreak such havoc that his nice SUV won't comfort him any longer. Only then the measures will have to be much more painful than now. And, as I say, it'll be exactly those politicians who're now saying "the jury is still out there" who will make sure that it is John "not-so-well-off" Doe that'll have to bleed, not John "Dubya" Doe.

(prove) "scientific proof" that is, or evidence...

This is what I do not like about Bill's stand up. He repeats jokes that he uses on Real Time, and his viewers already know the punch lines. Still, he makes some good points.

Hi like Bill Maher's show, but during stand up he repeats the lines from his program. His viewers know the punchlines. Still funny, but predictable. ;-)

"And believe me, John Doe will d e m a n d that something happens when the weather will wreak such havoc that his nice SUV won't comfort him any longer"

An important political question: how do ordinary people "demand" that the government do something about something like global warming? The government can't just make it stop by spending money. You can vote people out who don't believe in it, but then again some people will still be attracted to the idea that it isn't happening even when it's effects are very real.

Climate change is the environmental disaster par excellence--its effects are serious, but hard to positively identify and are spread over a great deal of time and space. Moreover the gap between cause and effect is very complex and very long term. It's easy to confuse people or to push the solution onto others, and the bad things we're causing won't happen until the next election cycle is long over. In short, it's a problem that does not get solved by the normal electoral forces. If anything is to be done it will take either a political consensus between the two parties or a bureaucratic solution that is tolerated by most voters. Fat chance of the first happening, and the second is kind of a problem, too: we accept the fact that unelected bureaucrats set interest rate targets, because most people don't know how it really affects them. But people will understand very clearly how a sensible climate change policy affects them, at the pump. It really speaks to the extent to which the state in the U.S. is really able to identify and solve major social problems. Launching a major war is more politically feasible than policies--like a gas tax or election reform--that most informed people agree with.

Good...Overthrowing the system would be a good start...and a better future then if we wait untill that Cadillac Escalade is not comfortable anymore for John & Jane because its under 10 ft of water.

We need to do something drastic NOW...Not Tommorow..

HighSpeed Trains, Biofuels, Fusion, Renewables, Sustainiblity, etc...

I hear people bitch and moan that to build wind mills, fuelcells, etc takes oil. To which I can only reply with "At first"

Lets spend it now....WHO CARES WHAT THE COST IS!?!?!

You wanna leave MAD MAX world to your kids?

You seriously hate the Earth...and the conciousness of life that much that the ILLUSION of Money would stop you from saving our home?...

More evidence of global warming:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051125/NEWS07/511250505/1009/NEWS07

I think we need a model that effectively predicts the amount of ice cap melting or warming up of oceans. Then put a doomsday clock up that measures the ability of a world economy to shift momentum away from technologies and events that contribute to global warming.

Maybe the model exists. Just measure the rate of change in the height of Dutch Levies.

Rduke: The problem is that the MadMax world probably (hopefully) won't take place in our time... so it is a far away, that image, and therefore people don't care. i agree though that action should be taken rather now than next year. Also the overthrowing part is not an action which would (likely) take place now, but rather if and when a government would take action on environmental issues now that a revolt would start by joe average who won't accept drastic measures in policy-change to alter our economy/way-of-life. If we/people act to abrupt, there would be a counter reaction (not good) so how do we start this change?

vision: i see it as a tree, a seed grows at the same time its roots and also it's flower. i used to think that you have to have a good base first before you build a house, but society is organic and not concrete. So hopefully we will (also by means of websites) be able to sow seeds for a better future.

Why do people assume that the dire effects of global warming would be far in the future? Just look at the glaciar melting in Greenland. We thought that would not be happening so fast for many decades. It is happening now. When that much freshwater mixes with the ocean and dilutes the salt content and thereby messes up the currents which also effects the air currents (and jet stream and weather), things could really speed up.

I'm a Bill Maher fan, but his atmospheric O2 content comment was hideously inaccurate--at 9% O2, we'd all be dead in minutes. I'm sure it was a slip, but he needs to provide an explanation; otherwise, he looks like a shameless propagandist himself. To be so far off on such a common bit of knowledge.... looks very bad.

"An important political question: how do ordinary people "demand" that the government do something..."

Well, you know, it's called voting.

"...about something like global warming?"

And I didn't say, that it'll gonna work. But you'll be surprised, what the powers that be will gonna come up with: driving prohibition for poor people (got a licence? you a senator..?), massive gas taxes for private persons (not "firms" and their associates, of course), secure habitats and occupied rain forests for the few - and so on. Environmentalism Republican style.