HomeMost Popular on AATTPSuck It, Creationists: ‘Cosmos’ Drew Biggest Global Audience EVER for the National Geographic Channel

Suck It, Creationists: ‘Cosmos’ Drew Biggest Global Audience EVER for the National Geographic Channel

What do you do when crazy creationists and Koch-fueled climate change deniers keep trying to undermine science (and often succeeding)? Promote science with an awesome reality show that’s so cool you have to watch it… and then, watch it go viral. Geeky National Geographic — long the refuge of science, anthropology, and photography nerds  — launched Cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson just four months ago.

The Cosmos reboot (the original ran on PBS in the 1980’s with the celebrity-scientist du jour, Carl Sagan) first aired to 8.5 million people in 180 countries, and took the world by storm. Variety — a popular trade magazine for the entertainment industry — reports that the show now boasts a huge worldwide audience of 135 million, and 45 million in the U.S. alone. Needless to say, this is the hugest audience the humble, nerdy folks at the National Geographic Channel have ever drawn for any of their shows.

Liz Dolan, the chief marketroid for Fox International Channels and National Geographic Channels International declared:

Cosmos serves as a fantastic benchmark — illustrating the power of a fully integrated strategic vision, awe-inspiring content and the strengths of the Fox and National Geographic brands to create an outstanding viewing experience for audiences that repeats week after week.”

How ironic that while the talking heads on Fox “News” promote creationism and climate change denial to please their “Christian” and dirty energy overlords, Cosmos draws us into the beauty, unfolding mysteries, and sheer awesomeness of science.

In case you’ve missed what the fuss is all about, here’s the original trailer.

And here’s the entire first episode from Open Culture via Hulu.

More from AATTP on Cosmos.

Share on RedditShare on LinkedInDigg thisShare on StumbleUponPin on PinterestShare on TumblrShare on Google+Email this to someonePrint this page

About Elisabeth Parker

Elisabeth Parker is a writer, editor, web designer, mom, political junkie, and dilettante. "Like" her on Facebook, follow her on Twitter, check out her Pinterest boards, and + her on Google +. For more AATTP articles by Elisabeth, click here.
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5OWRRJh-PI&list=FLYJP3MjZQ-BJugrvyegfQ7Q&index=1&feature=plpp_video Alberto Knox

    Yes, he was put to death for heresy.

  • kurtsteinbach

    It’s NOAA (National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration), not Noah. Noah was a fictional character from a fictional book who built an Ark to ride out a fictional worldwide flood. Go back to your delusions and your mental institution little girl….

  • Lionel Hutz

    That’s because the most ardent, religious fanatics are the angry atheists. And make no mistake, that IS a religion. It inspires passion, they vigorously debate and try to persuade others their view IS the right one (see Reddit), they want it taught in schools, etc. It’s a religion.

    • CCIFan

      No, Atheists simply reject the belief in any deities and try to listen to reason. Climate change deniers are listening to their faith, the Koch bothers (not a typo), and Fox news. Climate Change supporters are supporting the scientific results of hundreds of scientific studies proving that climate change is real. Unfortunately, Climate change deniers have turned a scientific debate into a political one.

      • kurtsteinbach

        Actually, it should be Koch botherers. Can I use that? There are now 1000s of studies and experiments with data and models showing climate change is real and humans are making it worse, for future humans. Finally, I think the Climate Scientists are correct. Just look at my comments on thisarticle, and you’ll see that. I think Climate Change should be political. Americans and our leaders should be making policy based on Climate Science. We should be making policy to mitigate the adverse effects on us and our posterity with the end goal to eventually be to get all of our power and life needs, or at least as many and as much as possible from renewable sources. With current technology, we could achieve this, but since we have 97% of scientists agreeing the threat is real, we need something approaching a large majority of the population doing much more to stop using fossil fuels and we need to stop the deniers from pushing humanity ever more rapidly towards either extinction or catastrophe….

    • Skip Moreland

      I have never seen where an atheist has insisted that schools teach there is no god. Not once in my life. We have insisted that no religion be taught (except in appropriate fields of study such as social studies, cultures, etc.) be taught in a public school. That is not the same thing as teaching atheism. There is suppose to be a line where government (by the 1st amendment) shall not endorse any religion.
      By insisting that one religion should have preference in a public school with prayers and other matters, that makes the government endorsing that religion. Which is why the courts have always found it unconstitutional. If you want religion taught, go to a private school or church. The government has no business teaching religion.
      I have been subjected all my life by those who inflict their religion upon me. When someone does that to me, I will vigorously defend my beliefs. Otherwise I don’t give a flying duck as to what someone else believes. They can worship a garbage can for all I care. Or the flying spaghetti monster, or any of the thousands of beliefs out there.
      That is quite a reach and lots of hate coming from you, I have endured that in my life from people like you. You can’t stand atheists. We actually get that. And we can’t stand people like you who won’t respect us for believing differently.

  • Brad

    Nice cut and paste, however, you’ve continued to buy the lie that has been fed to you by liars. I suggest you look at actual temperatures over the last century and not MODELS perpetrated by “scientists” paid to come up with certain conclusions.

    You can get out of your ignorance by doing some actual research, not by cutting and pasting.

    • Bignevermo

      I guess you think I am supposed to go around and collect data myself huh…LMAO… one thing I really notice is your rhetoric, you cite no sources to refute any of my data, you just rely on what, taslking points??? You sure dont rely on science!! Where is your data dude? … I guess you think that rhetoric trumps actual data…models, Brad, are used to PREDICT what will happen…the data I “copy and pasted”( showing my sources which apparently you abhor) is ACTUAL data NOT models…are you really that dense? You obviously dont know how these grants work either… they get the grants and then do the research…their grant money has nothing to do with outcome or analysis of said data… I am glad you brought up the money issue… all of the denier “scientists” have been linked to the fossil fuel industry… it is the “denier” camp that is being paid to shill for the fossil fuel industry… and so again…can you come up with any data that refutes AGW? You have not so far…as so it is you that is ignernt!

      • Brad

        First, this is not “your data.” It is what you have regurgitated from the sites that agree with you.

        You can look at actual data and not models which have been used to cover up the recorded temperatures for much of the last century.

        I understand your struggle with using actual, recorded temperatures as opposed to the ever changing models of climate alarmists, but you should begin to think for yourself at some point in your life. Otherwise, you will simply continue to regurgitate whatever the low information liberals tell you to believe.

        Your ignorance is also noted, since you simply believe what your fed. Do you really believe that these psuedo-scientists will continue to get their grants if they come up with something other than the bilge that you spew? If you do, your ignorance goes deeper than I realize.

        Bottom line, the average earth temperature has ONLY increase 1.5 degrees F in the last 135 years. Only an alarmist, and a liberal, would make a big deal out of this.

    • CCIFan

      And where is your counter research, Brad?

    • Robert Kennedy

      And you insult everyone who has done actual research. This is not a wing nut site where ignorance and lies are revered, so why don’t you sink to your own level lil Brat, er lil Brad?

      • Brad

        What research did YOU do? What about Bignevermo? None. You both, as well as Mr. “I’m getting a PhD” and CCIFan are simply regurgitating what you are told to believe. Keep drinking the kool-aid.

        • Robert Kennedy

          I’m intelligent enough to understand that every climate scientist not in the employ of the polluters agrees. You’re stupid enough to believe that the biostitutes who get their funding for lying about climate change are right.

  • Brad

    You should begin to do some actual research and not regurgitation, which is typical of a low information liberal. I will give you some help, since you seem to be struggling.

    Look at the ACTUAL recorded temperatures NOT models. Perhaps this will open your mind to the truth, but only if you want to get out of your ignorance.

    • smb11

      Brad,
      You do recognize that what the PhD candidate listed IS data?
      Can you define “data” and “model”?
      Really, Brad, willful ignorance is not attractive.

      • Brad

        His information is not updated, especially that concerning ice flows. He also conveniently left out the fact that the earth has NOT increased in temperature in the last 16 years.

        It is typical of liberals to use and argument from authority, as if that determines some sort of truth. He will become a typical “scientist” who will provide the findings he is required to find by his employer.

        • smb11

          Brad,
          As usual, you did not answer the question. You did not define “data” and “model” to demonstrate you have the most rudimentary skill to have a layman’s understanding of a scientific study.
          OSU provided a long list of relevant data. You have provided none.

          • kurtsteinbach

            By the way Brad, the doctor, the plumber, and the mechanic are all experts in their fields. They are also referred to as authorities in their respective fields. Scientist are experts and authorities in their fields. You might want to look up the noun form of the word, “authority.” 97% of scientists think and have pretty much consistently proven over the last 100 years that what is referred to as Climate Change or Global Warming is real. It is a threat to mankind, the economy, and our future. The earth will survive, but our children and grandchildren may not survive very well.

            97% of all scientist have shown through repeated testing and experimentation that the activities of man in burning fossil fuels and using non-renewable resources the way we do is threatening his own existence and way of life on this planet, and the ways of life of other species as well. Not all of them are “on the take,” and the way science works is not to prove Manmade Climate Change exists, but rather to try and disprove it. They haven’t been able to disprove it at all. On the contrary, they keep coming up with new evidence and proof that it the phenomena known as Climate Change is a reality.

            Other experts and authorities have proven that the 3% of scientists who disagree are in the employ of the very people who have contributed and are causing Climate Change to get worse. The 97% of scientists, in some cases, work for different nations, different Universities, and different independent groups and are not all “working together” to convince idiots like you that the sky is falling. The increase in extreme weather events and the worsening of the climate over time is something that has been observed and is being observed to be happening. It is still happening. You need to stop looking at the same right wing, nut job, conservative, Fox Noise inspired sources. Science, including Climate Science is a fact and reality of nature and the universe whether you believe it or not….

  • Brad

    More liberal bilge regurgitated.

    • CCIFan

      So are you denying deforestation in the Amazon is taking place?

      • Brad

        Perhaps you should read current articles that show that much of the Amazon was used as farmland in the past. Anyway, this has absolutely nothing to do with the false claims of climate alarmists.

        • CCIFan

          Yeah, it was farmland….about 3000 years ago. If I remember right, there wasnt that much that heavy industry going on. In fact, I dont think there was ANY Industry going on. With the continuing deforestation of the Amazon, that means less CO2 can be converted to Oxygen. That also means that the CO2 is just staying there in the atmosphere. Sun heats up the CO2 gases and it slowly gets hotter over time.
          If we humans keep getting rid of our natural CO2 filters, its going to get worse.

          • Brad

            Let me say this slowly, since you appear to struggle with facts. The temperature of the earth has NOT increased in the last 16 years. Your “deforestation of the Amazon” argument is simply another attempt at deflection.

          • CCIFan

            Brad, Prove it and if you can not back up your statement with facts and not a simple statement of Nope or silly “libtard” type comments, you are truly a troll.
            Weather and climate are two different things. Has the Temperature of the Earth increased over the last 100 years?

  • Brad

    Do some research, lil skip, and don’t just simply regurgitate what you are told to believe.

    The 1930’s were the hottest on record. Why is it you are unable to find this information?

    • smb11

      Where is your research, Brad?
      If you know anything about climate studies, you would know that data for one decade is not enough to draw any conclusions.
      I don’t know if Skip is a scientist or not, but he demonstrates a greater command of the elements of climate studies than either you or Susie. However, it doesn’t take much to be better than zero.

    • Robert Kennedy

      No they weren’t. The 15 hottest years in history have all fallen within the last 20 years, lil numbskull. Stop reading wingnut sources.

      • Brad

        The average temperature of the earth has NOT increased in the last 16 years, lil Robert.

        Also, the average earth temperature has only increase 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 135 years. Please explain how that is a problem and why we should listen to “scientists” who get paid to come up with the “correct” interpretation of ever changing “climate models”?

    • Skip Moreland

      One things deniers always try to do is to use weather as proof compared to climate little boy. The problem is that weather is short term, climate is the long term. So trying to use weather as one year having the highest temperature proves nothing except that we had a hot year. That is not climate. Climate is decades of data with years of weather correlated together.
      It’s like some who point to 1994 and say the earth hasn’t warmed anymore since then (and their data is faulty on that anyways, they fail to take global temps into account.). Same problem of using weather to try and prove climate is faulty. One year is not climate, it’s still weather.
      You can’t use a year or a couple of years to prove your point. That is not climate, it will be weather no matter how you try and spin it little boy. It is not how the science of climatology works. It is extremely erroneous to use a hot year to disprove climate change.
      And it proves that little boys like you don’t have a clue as to what is science and how it is done.
      It’s like discussing evolution and saying chimps haven’t evolved into humans. No clue as to what evolution means plus any of the science behind the differences of chimps and humans.
      So 1934 is the hottest, then 1998 was second, the next 8 hottest years have been in the 21st century. Far more of a pattern than one single year. And even that is not enough by itself, it takes far more data to correlate (which the scientists use) to show climate change in the form of global warming.
      So little boy, I have studied science for many decades, how many years of burger flipping do you have to make asinine statements? Can you answer any of the questions I posted above? Do you have any clue as to what is science beyond what someone told you to parrot like a good little boy? Your cherry picking doesn’t impress me at all. In fact it makes me think you are quite ignorant. Or just a little boy trying to impress his elders.

      • Brad

        Sorry, lil skip. But it is climate alarmists who claimed there would be more hurricanes, tornados, floods, etc., which didn’t pan out. So, like you they go back to the same old mantra, which is typical of someone who cannot prove what they believe.

        As far as the earth heating, your information is incorrect, which is why you do not provide any numbers. Again, typical of climate alarmists.

        That is also why the U.N. and their scientists have tried to hide that fact that the earth’s temperature has NOT increased in the last 16 years, in spite of their claims concerning global warming.

        Bottom line, the earth’s average temperature has ONLY increased by 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 135 years. Only low information liberals such as yourself will continue to buy the bilge put out by the scientists who are paid to come up with the “right” conclusion.

        • Skip Moreland

          Little boy, you still didn’t answer any of the questions. And yet you point to the fact that the temperature has risen in the past 135 yrs, which is what climatologists have said it has.
          The air temperature has not gone up in the past 16 yrs, but ocean temperatures have increased and are still increasing. And oceans are part of the global world.
          2nd climatologists predictions are for the end of the 21st century, to say at the beginning of the century that their predictions are not coming true is jumping the gun by quite a bit. So to say that predictions still 85 yrs down the road haven’t come true is a bit too soon to tell. Do you have a crystal ball to see that future to prove their predictions won’t come true?
          In reality we are just starting to see the effects of climate change, no climatologist says that we are seeing the true effects of what the future holds for us if we don’t change our ways. To go and say the predictions for the last part of the century haven’t come true, is absurd on your part.
          Oh and by the way, you never provide any facts or any evidence, all you do is regurgitate something you have heard. So to accuse others of not doing so is hypocritical on your part. As usual on your part little boy.
          And the ‘scientists’ who are paid to come up with the ‘right’ conclusion are the ones who work for the carbon industry, just like the ‘scientists’ who worked for big tobacco were paid to come up with evidence that smoking was not bad for you. In fact many of the people who worked for big tobacco to fight claims of harm from smoking, now work for the big carbon industries. And they are the ones who make the big bucks, a lot more than any climatologist makes. In fact it is easy to find out how much more they make.
          And boy are they paid to come up with the ‘right’ conclusion. But considering how much money big carbon stands to lose if climate change forces them to change their ways, they don’t want to lose those 10s’ of trillions of dollars of carbon money. Because if you really follow the money, big carbon stands to lose big time. And they don’t wish to have 10s’ of trillions of dollars of carbon sitting in the ground. Not when they stand to make a big profit off of it.
          I really have to laugh that climatologists (who get paid no matter what their conclusion came to) are the ones who will make it rich, when in reality it is the Koch Bros and others who will make a fortune by denying.

        • Skip Moreland

          I see little boy you ran again when presented with facts and the truth. You are the one regurgitating what others say w/o any clue as to what it means or how wrong it is. All you have left is your insults and mockery and even at that little boy you fail.

  • Brad

    Do you believe that the scientific method is the only proof available, lil smb?

    If so, please use this method to prove where you went to high school, where you grew up, and where you were yesterday.

    • smb11

      Your post is a failure in logic, as usual, lil Brad.
      The Scientific Method is used to study — gasp! — scientific questions, such as is the current and projected rate of climate change and is it primarily affected by human activities.
      Questions related to an individual’s past and location are answered through investigatory activities, such as the police use.
      Different questions; different techniques.

      • Brad

        You cannot use the scientific method to answer the “projected rate of climate change.” This simply reveals your ignorance of the method since climate activity in the past CANNOT be repeated, and future change can only be guessed at (a method which is common with climate alarmists).

        Now, show me HOW the scientific method has been used to do this. Or are you going to ask someone else to do your research for you. Probably.

        • kurtsteinbach

          The past does repeat itself. It’s kind of the source of the quotes about those who forget the past (history) are condemned (doomed) to repeat it. That can be traced back to Sir Edmund Burke in the 18th century. The idea was repeated by George Santayana and echoed by Prime Minister Winston Churchill. There have also been several extinction level events in earth’s history. Several Ice Ages which have similarities. These are the kinds of things people mean and are referring to when we say history repeats itself. Past scientific discovery and data (climate activity) has and does repeat. We call those patterns. It is how scientists, economists, historians, and people in other fields of expertise can predict future events. Philosophers, scientists, liberals, and other smart people predicted current and recent events hundreds of years in the past based on events that were in their past and based upon their current events. Many of those predictions have been pretty accurate. So, you’re wrong again Brad. Thanks for showing your continuing ignorance, and thanks so much for playing. Your really are quite amusing and quite entertaining….

    • Robert Kennedy

      It’s the only real proof. Lies don’t count and the only scientists pushing other theories are paid by the polluters and the Republican party. Even conservative climate scientists from other countries back it.

      • Brad

        Your ignorance is noted. Climatologists are PAID by governments, by way of grants, to come up with the “right” answer concerning MMCC (Man Made Climate Change).

        That is why governments (not scientists) pushed scientists to cover up the fact that the Earth’s temperature has not increased in the last 16 years.

        Your understanding of what constitutes “proof” simply confirms your status as a typical low information liberal who regurgitates what he is told to believe.

        • kurtsteinbach

          WRONG! not all scientists are paid by the government. Much of the research is done by private Universities like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford. Not all of it has government funding. Some of it is funded by private Institutes like the Carnegie Foundation. The sources of scientific funding are varied and many. This ensures that scientific research from different and independent sources exists. This ensures that no one person or entity can control the funding, the outcomes of the research, and so that no one person or group can force the conclusions to distort reality. Scientists compete against each other to disprove each other. When they get the same or similar results, or overlapping results repeatedly, that pattern and those similarities are how we know that someone is on the right track and is probably correct. But thanks for showing your ignorance as to how science works once again Brad….

  • ArthurPaliden

    When are they going to repeat it? Hopefully in September at the start of the school year.

    • kurtsteinbach

      FYI! You can watch all the episodes of Cosmos (2014) free, online, streaming until the next season. Just Google “Cosmos 2014 free online.” By the way, Cosmos 2014 was just nominated for 12 Emmy Awards. WOW! Mazel Tov to Neil DeGrasse Tyson and the entire Cosmos team!

  • smb11

    Okay, Hooper.
    You have had time enough to respond. Since you haven’t, it makes it look as though you are the one who is lying.

    • ArthurPaliden

      Of course he is lying. Did you actually think he wasn’t?

      • Robert Kennedy

        Lying is the only thing his gang and he are capable of.

  • Argent

    So far (16 hours later as of now), Hooper has given no support for his claim. I *suspect* that there is no such support available (in which case, he is in danger of being guilty of libel).
    So, Hooper, step up to the plate or go home in disgrace. Which is it to be?

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5OWRRJh-PI&list=FLYJP3MjZQ-BJugrvyegfQ7Q&index=1&feature=plpp_video Alberto Knox

      So I hit up Google. the Fundies are whining that the Brunno segment presents Brunno as a scientist when he wasn’t. And not “everyone” thought the earth was the center of the universe (“On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres” published before Brunno’s death). Fair enough.

      Sloppy, perhaps. Lies, no.

  • Laurie Neufeld

    In this case “We” means Hoopsie, Susie and his “lil” Brad.

    • kurtsteinbach

      No, in Hooper’s case, “We” means god and all his wittle teabagger warriors…. LOL!

  • Susie Sotar

    There is more evidence to support the existence of both small and large cycles. The 1930s were particularly hot and then cooling happened. We just came out of a warming cycle about 17 years ago and are now cooling again.
    Besides the evidence of small and large cycles there is abundant evidence that Al Gore, manufacturers of windmills and solar panels and various governments, including our own, stand to realize huge windfall profits in the event that the scam is ever pulled off.
    For people who generally abhor corporate profits the left has bought into this ruse hook, line and sinker and have become one huge tool to help them realize those profits.
    A reasonable person would ask: If global warming were truly being caused by fossil fuels, why aren’t those who seem to be most concerned about it doing things individually to alleviate the problem? Every time I ask that question they tell me that, individually, they can’t or that they just want the government to force the issue. That, of course, is no answer at all.

    • Laurie Neufeld

      Susie, weather is not climate. No matter how much you try to make it so, it is not.

      • Susie Sotar

        I didn’t say that weather is climate. Can you not read? Good lord, the talking points come whether there’s a reason for them or not! They just wind up the tools and let them run on auto pilot.

        • smb11

          Susie,
          It is you who is on auto pilot with the political propaganda.
          Skip, Big and OSU Aero Eng all demonstrate a capacity for learning, an understanding of research principles and a general understanding of climate science.
          They also demonstrate competency in Critical Thinking Skills, reading comprehension and logic.
          You and Brad demonstrate none of these competencies.

    • smb11

      If someone who is concerned by climate change drives a Hummer, you have a point.
      All I can testify to are my actions. I drive an ultra-low emission vehicle, I drive enough to fill up my tank once a month, I am transforming my yard to almost all natives so I work with nature rather than against it, I bought the most efficient natural gas furnace on the market and I have installed maximum weatherization measures in my house. I would have installed solar panels except that I already am a low energy user. My monthly bill for natural gas and electricity combined is under $100. I removed all my lawn and replaced it with natives. When I had a lawn, I had a push mower and an electric mower, which was used for the first cut of the season. I also am in the green energy plan with my electrical company. I pay extra each month on my bill for their habitat restoration program and alternative energy program. It is not tax deductible, by the way.
      There are a lot of us taking these kinds of measures.
      EVERY time you asked concerned individuals what are they doing, did they ALL say that they can’t do anything individually?

      • Susie Sotar

        Yes, they have. To top it off they have condemned me because I have done many things to reduce my own energy use BUT I have done it to lower my costs. It achieves the same result which is less fossil fuels used but I get condemned because I didn’t do it to “lower my carbon footprint”.
        I have to commend you for avtually doing some things which arecon sistant with your beliefs. We may disagree about what is causing climate change butat least you practice what you praech.

  • Bignevermo

    Myths? LOL… there is way too much supporting evidence to prove that Global warming is real and man has a play in it… you “deniers” have no supporting evidence… yes the earth has warmed and cooled… but usually over millenium…not in such a short course as it has happened and is happening…Real estate companies…the Pentagon… local governments are all factoring AGW in their decision making… the rising seas are real, the acidification of the oceans are real…this during solar minimums when the earth should have been cooling…the rising temps are not currently rising at the same rate as previous years but it is still rising…please post some of your ‘science” so that we may peruse it.

  • Skip Moreland

    Can you tell me the solar activity level at that time and the level of CO2? Can you tell me how much of the planet was covered in ice or water? Can you tell me what forms of life were living back then? Can you tell me how much arid land was to be found then? Can you tell me the level of weathering of rocks were? Whether mountains were few or many?
    Do you know what acidification is? Do you know what a dead zone is? Do you know what the natural cycle of climate is? Do you know what just 1 more degree C does to our crops? Do you know what biodiversity is? Do you know what an ecosystem is? Do you have a clue of anything besides the talking points that you spew?
    Certainly the planet will do fine. The rest of us, not so good when our food sources die out, disease and pollution increase, and many millions are displaced because of flooding.

  • smb11

    What is your educational background that enables you to determine that Cosmos lied? You said “we know”, therefore, you must have supporting documentation to backup your claim.
    In order for you to be taken seriously, you will need to provide your bona fides.

  • rubato

    No, he’s giving you a fair chance. I would skip passing out warnings to non-thinkers because they’d respond more mockery.

  • smb11

    Burning fossil fuels is not the only human activity that is causing problems.
    We don’t have the vegetation coverage across the planet we had in the past. We still have the naturally occurring sources of greenhouse gases. Pre-industrial revolution planetary systems were in place to keep the greenhouse gases in balance. Industrialization, deforestation, and intensive agriculture have upset that balance. We are writing checks the planet cannot pay.

  • smb11

    Susie,

    Do you know about the Scientific Method?

    Ask a Question
    Do Background Research
    Construct a Hypothesis
    Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
    Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
    Communicate Your Results
    Have you subjected your beliefs to the Scientific Method? The scientists from multiple disciplines who have studied this have subjected their hypothesis to the Scientific Method.
    The following Scientific Societies have published statements supporting the position that climate change is occurring and are “very likely” due to human activities.
    American Association for the Advancement of Science
    American Chemical Society
    American Geochemical Union
    American Medical Association
    American Meteorological Association
    American Physical Society
    The Geological Society of America
    The list of science academies, government bodies and scientific organization goes into the hundreds. This information was obtained from a NASA web page on Climate Change.
    What is your source for backing up your claims? Fox News and George Will?

  • Susie Sotar

    I don’t think that anyone would deny either the beauty of mystery of the creation. Whether you believe that it happened at the hand of God or was just a random thing would not at all detract from the beauty, mystery or complexity of the creation. What we all can agree on is that it happened. I’m not at all surprised that millions on both sides of the argument watched in rapt awe. The one thing that detracted from the experience was the amount of political propaganda about the naturally occurring climate cycles that have been going on for 4.5 billion years without man’s presence. It seemed a shame that the producers and Tyson lowered themselves to the level of political propagandists for the myths of manmade global warming, climate change and climate disruption.

    • Skip Moreland

      There is no myth nor propaganda. Man has a destructive effect on the environment. Keep up with the denials, as I said before, I hope that people like you will suffer from that denial when it hits home.

      • Susie Sotar

        Skip, you keep following me around like a lost puppy. Do you have a deep seated fear that others might agree with me? Or are you just delusional enough to believe that you, singlehandedly, can stamp out what you perceive to be ignorance in the world? There is psychiatric help, you know.

        • kurtsteinbach

          Yes, and that psychiatric help that you so desperately need Susie/Brad/Hooper is covered by Obamacare. Here’s your sign….

          • Susie Sotar

            Are you licensed to prescribe or just delusional?

          • Brad

            Another low information liberal who fears confronting someone directly. Why is that, lil kurt? Are you unable to sustain an argument, or just unwilling. Probably the former (that means the first, Marge).

          • smb11

            Brad,
            You have yet to demonstrate that you are in possession of any information at all. When are you going to bring anything to the table other than “typical liberal bilge”?

          • Brad

            When you actually understand the scientific method, and its limitations, then come talk to me. Until then, you will remain in your self imposed ignorance.

          • smb11

            Brad,
            You repeatedly refuse to inform us of your background or refer to studies that support your position. Eventually, you actually have to provide something of substance. Until you do, your posts are irrelevant.

          • Robert Kennedy

            From what I’ve seen, at least 99% of all liberals and moderates are far better informed than 99+% of all conservatives, and your constant meme of low information liberal is proof that you are not one of the enlightened.

          • Brad

            That’s because you see everything through the flawed lens on liberalism. That is also why you are unable to defend what you believe, primarily because liberalism doesn’t deal with truth, only baseless speculation.

        • Robert Kennedy

          No, you keep showing up in a place where your lies are regularly exposed. You must be following him around, because this is not the sort of place where your ignorance is usually found. Man caused climate change is real, get used to it. And even if it weren’t, addressing it would help people with lung problems and would create millions of jobs more than it would end. Only idiots fight it.

          • Brad

            Where have you “exposed” any of her so called “lies”? You just make false claims without proof, which is typical of lils.

          • Robert Kennedy

            You, Hooper, Susie Stupid and your ilk do nothing BUT lie. You expose your lies yourself. Your vomitus ideology prevents you from ever being right about anything except wing.

          • Robert Kennedy

            We have shown you the facts thousands of times and you just ignore them. So those would be the exposed lies that you keep repeating long after they have been disproven. The fact that you are dumber that the average kindergartner and don’t realize you’ve been exposed changes nothing. Go soak your head, troll.

    • Elisabeth Parker

      Sure, there are “naturally-occurring” climate cycle. But that has nothing to do with the fact that our excessive use of fossil fuels is raising the earth’s temperature to the point where it will no longer support human life or any life as we know it.

      • Susie Sotar

        Our planet and mankind will do just fine Elisabeth. The fossil fuels that we use produce far less CO2 and other greenhouse gasses than our earth has had to handle in the past.

        • Robert Kennedy

          Yep, and there was no advanced life on the planet then. Trilobites and cockroaches are hardier species than mankind in regard to CO2 levels. As the planet cooled from its’ formation, more advanced species developed as the CO2 levels dropped precipitously. Of course, you might have survived, being a lower life form and all. ;o)

        • Robert Kennedy

          Yeah, back when the Earth was a million years old. But not when mammals were here.

      • Brad

        The earth has been cooling since the 1930s, lil Elisabeth, which was the hottest decade on record. Why is it that you are unable to find these facts on your own and you simply regurgitate what you are told to believe? Are you incapable of actual research?

        I am sure those who continually put out false readings are proud of your support. Keep drinking the kook-aid.

        • CCIFan

          Yeah, pick a fight with a Moderator. Can someone pass the popcorn?

          • Brad

            The moderators here are typical liberals who are unable to defend what they believe. They simply regurgitate what they are told to believe without even a second thought.

          • kurtsteinbach

            Yeah, because you’re NOT defending the demonic Christian, Right Wing nut job beliefs that you saw on Fox Noise and heard from anti-heroes Rush Limpbaughs, Alex Jones, and Glenn Beck. Why don’t you grow up and get a real education, and being accredited by your religion does not make one an expert on anything but theology.

Scroll To Top
website security Website Security Test