Our Rising Oceans
For preview only. Get it at Amazon.com  #ad.

Our Rising Oceans

2015, Environment  -   82 Comments
Ratings: 9.00/10 from 193 users.

In the opening moments of Our Rising Oceans we learn that global catastrophe lies beneath the awe-inspiring pale blue skies and ghostly white icescapes of West Antarctica. The scientific data regarding the effects of climate change on the ongoing process of glacial melting is overwhelming. Yet according to the many subjects featured in the film, a staggering percentage of the public remains doubtful, and our politicians and other policy influencers remain hesitant to act due to ill-informed skepticism and corporate interests.

In response to those naysayers, VICE founder and host Shane Smith ventures to the epicenter of the crisis to discover firsthand the science by which these changes are being observed, and the dire consequences of inaction.

"Antarctica is starting to melt," warns expert glaciologist Dr. Eric Rignot. Over the past twenty years, Dr. Rignot has analyzed reams of carefully procured data, and his discoveries indicate a rapidly deteriorating environment which could forever alter the fate of mankind. Here, in the midst of the Antarctic plains, wind is circulating at an unprecedented rate and pushing warm waters underneath the massive sheets of ice. This dynamic effectively melts these sheets from the bottom up, and has a profoundly distressing impact on rising sea levels.

Over the course of the film, Dr. Rignot is joined by a host of additional scientists who dedicate their lives to bearing witness to these calamitous changes, and pursuing solutions against the opposition of politicized stagnation. But even in the absence of this opposition, the disastrous effects of climate change may be too far gone to rectify. Dr. Rignot contends that even the strictest emission regulations cannot reverse the tides of a redefining global landscape. Others testify that additional environmental protection policies may slow the process, but will by no means guarantee the sustainability of future generations.

But even the slivers of hope which do exist seem impossible to realize given the gridlock of governmental leadership within the United States, as its representatives remain sharply divided on the mere existence of climate change. "I think it's almost like denying gravity now," says Vice President Joe Biden in an interview which closes the film. Our Rising Oceans paints a powerful portrait of a planet on the brink of ruin, and the political dysfunction which continues to push it over the edge.

More great documentaries

82 Comments / User Reviews

  1. W Hoami

    Please watch NASA The "Mystery" of Antarctic cooling for more knowledge and scientific facts regarding climate warming.

  2. Barry Bozeman

    Knowing what we've known and know a pathetic futility looms lurching unstoppable toward rage and inevitable eventual revenge. Our earth and nature - mother nature of the natural world and human nature -collide with catastrophic consequence. Share holders, corporate captains, bankers with investors who purchase lawmakers blind to the destruction of short term gain. Wealthy mercenary assassins and world destroyers these lost souls forever damned. Deniers of science their ill-gotten gains piled high in vaults and empty mansions mute testimony to their poverty of spirit and Godless greed.
    The indigenous peoples might have taught us how to live forever in harmony with creation but for the Christians of Dominion and their deregulated capitalist creed.
    Once the last animal is slain and the last tree felled the fire that never dies will rage across the earth for centuries to come as a carbon filled sky surrounds the dead seas covering a ruined world we wrought and brought upon ourselves and our children. A Hell on Earth our legacy of ashes.

  3. God

    So i let you'all run loose on my favorite planet, and you've totally broken it !!! and for what? So a tiny number of you can own everything and everyone. You shame me.
    And before you start shooting off your mouths about free will - no one made you have sex with neanderthals and sheep. Its your own fault so many of your are dumb.
    The next flood will be your own doing. Oh the irony...

  4. Pladi K

    People dont even care about their own health never mind the earth. Food is LIFE and in US all people eat is GARBAGE. That in itself says alot about humans.. especially the ones blinded after industrial age, greed and power.

  5. go2green

    The film seemed to make sense to me. Actually I read and watch a lot of stuff on global warming. I always read the comments too and the disturbing thing is that I have seen the exact same word for word comments denying the data in several other places.

  6. Tri Minh Huynh

    I do not want to argue with your stated facts (probably from felon scientists?), just like to ask you the basic question: If what you said was true, what would the governments or people who were behind this "scare campaign", like myself - benefit from their actions? Very little if anything, except trying to make the Earth greener and a much better place to live. Only the greedy and powerful people who are against this "scare" would continue to benefit hugely from their hiding or twisting the truth of global warming. We have got to stop them, my friend, for the good or ourselves and our future generations.

    1. Faded Joke

      It's human vanity that allows us to take all the credit on climate change. That being said I will continue to drive everywhere, kinda have to, USA is a joke with Public Trans. But at the same time I don't use much electricity which is really the bulk of co2 comes from. All those factories pumping out carbon just so we all can be "patriotic consumers" are the culprits. Think about that with your next purchase ie... the newest must have gadget or piece of gear. Fortunately I am powered by nuclear so no co2 but, it comes at a cost as well. Pres. Carter banned spent fuel recycling so we have tons of radioactive waste sitting in overfilled cooling tanks. Gotta ship it overseas for recycling although we don't do that either. If we really hunkered down on a new manhatten project scale venture towards moving over to thorium based energy and finally started seeing all these great new battery discoveries over last 5yrs be pushed out on market, or wait till patents expires on 'em. Then we would be pretty golden, Although climate change would still naturally happen as our planet moves through the cosmos.

  7. Guest

    I do not want to argue with unproved or falsified facts, but just like to ask you the basic question: If what you say was true, what would governments or people who were behind this "scare campaign", like myself - benefit from their actions? Practically nothing, except trying to make the Earth greener and a much better place to live. Only people who are denying this "scare" would continue to benefit from hiding or twisting the truth. They will go on damaging our Earth environments, just to fatten their wallets. That is a sad reality of capitalist societies. We have got to stop them, my friend, for our future generations.

  8. S de Vere

    errrrr….this "science" has long ago been shown to be fabricated and false. The Antarctic ice has increased to record levels and there is no "ocean rise" measured anywhere. The Seychelles are still tourist traps as are the Islands of the South Pacific. Polar bears abound in the Arctic; fewer tornados/hurricanes in the USA and here in Australia the dams are full (we were told by our 'climate experts' that drought would be the norm and our dams would soon be dry. Well, the desalination plants built for billions have never been used and water still falls from the sky and the rivers continue to run).

    Whilst governments continue to give "climate scientists" hundreds of millions of dollars to produce yet more discredited studies, the big scare will continue. Leftist politicians will push along the scare and the mainstream media will boost it further. Unfortunately, for the climate frauds, nature refuses to cooperate with the scare campaign. No matter how often the "science" has been proven to be fraudulent, exaggerated or just plain wrong, the expensive climate change farce will continue because of the politics now behind it and because of the hatred of the warmists for those who have so often and easily exposed them as charlatans and criminals.

    1. Fabien L

      That's nonsense, the NOAA has records for stations all over the shores of the planet and the vast majority show an increase in mean sea levels for the last century.

      The 2011 report of the Pacific Climate Change Science Program published by the Australian Government concludes: "The sea-level rise near Tuvalu measured by satellite altimeters since 1993 is about 5 mm per year." That's a 11 cm (4.3") rise in 22 years.

      The exodus from Tuvalu has already begun with 4000 Tuvaluans now living in New Zealand and plans for evacuation of the 10 000 remaining inhabitants are being made.

      Word of caution to you : "If an argument depends on skipping certain observations or emphasizes uncertainty while ignoring an obvious trend, that's a clue you're being steered as opposed to informed. Don't be mislead by only a carefully-selected portion of the available evidence being disclosed."

    2. S de Vere

      Where exactly have the oceans risen, and by how much over what period ? The reality is this: oceans have always risen & fell due to natural causes over millennia, just as ice has increased, spread and decreased and retreated over millennia. Man cannot alter this or cause it . You'd have to be a government-funded 'Climate Scientist' to claim otherwise.

    3. Fabien L

      I didn't provide the cause, I contradicted your wrong affirmation which was the following : "there is no "ocean rise" measured anywhere".

      I am not a government funded scientist and even if I was the data exists to prove your affirmation is wrong.

      I can't post links here but you can google :
      sea level trends NOAA

      Of course if your point is that all scientists paid by governments are part of a global conspiracy, just let me know and I will not debate further as that is absolutely crazy. Some of these records go back 100 years so these measures weren't made to support a "climate conspiracy".

      For example, here is the info for Halifax, Canada.

      The mean sea level trend is 3.12 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.13 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1895 to 2011 which is equivalent to a change of 1.02 feet in 100 years.

    4. S de Vere

      So, with all this irrefutable 'scientific' evidence, the Climate Change brigade cannot account for 20 years of non-warming, and the confounding of their wrong "scientific" predictions. These same scientists were predicting Global Cooling back in the 1970s & 1980s. Seems that they were either just making it all up, rather than using scientific methods, or their science was full of holes….and still is.

    5. Fabien L

      Science will always have holes. The day it won't it will mean there are no more scientific experiments and observations to be done as everything is 100% understood.

      Would you please provide the names of the scientists that predicted global cooling back in the 70s and 80s? I'd like to check their peer reviewed scientific papers.

    6. Faded Joke

      i love all these frilly people and their records. NOAA has been keeping records for 100 years. it was created in the 70's. Officially recorded temps are about 100 years now, but why discredit ice core samples so frivolously? Temps have been rising for decades, yet from the end of WWII till the late 70's "climatologists" where scaring people with global cooling from temp drops year after year at a time where you couldn't see further than a few city blocks in heavy industry areas. Now its the in thing to speak about rising temps although few mention about when the Vikings could grow there own crops in Iceland during the medieval warm period. What about the little-iceage what happened there? Was there a lack of CO2 during the industrialization of Europe for 150-250 yrs? Or how about the glaciation period that occurred for over 1 million yrs during the late ordovician when CO2 was 4000ppm, 10x what we have now and great portions of the Earth froze. Don't get me wrong data points are great, just don't get carried away with the ones that only support your point of view.

    7. Fabien L

      I wrote "NOAA has records for stations all over the shores of the planet", not that NOAA has been recording them. If you are going to quote me at least use the text I typed. Also, I never mentioned temperatures but ocean levels.

    8. Lucifer Christ

      Scientists were never calling for Global Cooling. That was a college paper written in the 70s that you Neocons refer to as if it were gospel. Funny that you believe a book written thousands of years ago about a Magical Daddy Figure that lives in the sky, but thousands of scientists with mountains of evidence just isnt enough proof for you.

    9. Pladi K

      No one is going to believe you when you say "natural causes" what does that even mean ? Speak fact and have an open mind because science is all about having an open mind if you REALLY want to find out the truth.

    10. Greg Cox

      You are misinformed. The Antarctic OCEAN ice is at a record level but the western fresh water glaciers are receding at an unprecedented rate. This is the spin that special interests use to dupe people lacking scientific aptitude into believing their bull****.

      The amount of ocean ice has absolutely no bearing on sea levels, just as ice cubes melting in your drink to do not cause the liquid to overflow. The western glaciers will continue to melt, dumping massive amounts of NEW water into the ocean and it will result in the largest instance of sea level rise since the Laurentide outburst 8,000 years ago.

      While I agree that governments can not be trusted for the most part, you have chosen to side with the most corrupted faction of it. In time this trail of comments you leave on the Internet will become the evidence of your utter ignorance on the subject.

  9. Tri Minh Huynh

    I think just by looking at the facts, without any bias or prejudice, anyone with a fair mind would agree that global warming is a harsh reality caused by human greed (industries, cars, extensive animal farming, tropical forests destruction, etc.). The future of our Earth looks very bleak if governments fail in time to initiate and sustain drastic changes in our detrimental ways of life. Of course the greedy big heads (industrialists, corrupt governmental agencies, felon scientists, etc.) will try by any means to deny global warming for their own benefits. For those greedy people who are blindfolding themselves, it is no use to keep arguing with them. We need ourselves to contribute something meaningful and useful, even small, to help fix this huge problem - before it is too late for all of us. For example, walking or using our bicycle more often, instead of our car.

    1. HugoPorta

      We got rid of our motor vehicle and use public transport. I wonder how many folks out there that love our earth are willing to be less independent from private transport! It's a hell of a challenge, believe me, but we have to start somewhere and it's not governments that will make a difference, but the masses!

    2. Tri Minh Huynh

      I totally agree with and appreciate very much your constructive view and real action toward fixing our global warming problem. If many people can think and act positively like yourself, the Earth would surely be a much better place to live in. Sadly we are still living in the dense fog of misinformation caused by those felon scientists and corrupt government agencies - so quite a few people cannot fully realize the extent and the urgency of this potential global disaster.

    3. HugoPorta

      Thanks! :)


    the beauty of the Human ignorance,human beings are the only species who destroying every other species on this earth.also destroying nature as well why would they care about sea level rising? their nature is alter everything and change everything to their needs all these issues we hear about Mother nature telling us something is wrong but we are like kids don't listen to our mother

  11. Steeve Girard

    I am going to be nasty! Be warned!
    First of all... you bunch of prophet weiner's worshippers.... You are all wrong and right at the same time! You cannot predict the future properly and precisely, because of the chaotic nature of reality. The factors that are in the equations that determines the reality of Global Warming are squandered by the special interests of wealthy, influent, powerful individuals and groups in both camps. Which I am glad to not be totally part of, but not estranged to. I say this, because we are ants. We are part of the dynamic of this world, we do not dictate it, and will never be able to. The skeptics are right to say that some scientists will lie to keep their grants comming in. And the scientists are right to say that the skeptics are either incompetent and/or too worried about their own well being to have a clear sense of what is happening. So the choice we are faced is do something on a guess and kick the can further along the road, or do nothing and adapt or die... but both of these approaches are economically and sociologically insane, because of the sheer scale of the problems. So what we need is some judge who will either flip the coin, or have the sufficient clarity to tell what is truely happening. But that would have to be either divine in Nature, or a civilization that had previous experience with this. Both of which are not present on Earth. My hint is Nature will solve the problems itself, and if we are the problem, it will find a way to diminish our influence, or it will find a way to erase us. We are utterly powerless to address the issue. That is my conclusion.

    1. arcot

      spot on,

    2. HugoPorta

      Love it. I believe humans in nature were nomads in sync with nature but from the moment we settled in one place we started to change our environment in accordance to our needs, way out of sync with nature. Thats where hoarding and materialism started to come in a major way I think. Just a thought in a nutshell, so dont clobber me! :) Your reasoning is good Steeve, well thought out.

    3. go2green

      "You cannot predict the future properly and precisely, because of the chaotic nature of reality."

      Global warming due to co2 WAS predicted over 150 years ago. Just a coincidence?

    4. Steeve Girard

      Sorry man that reasoning of yours is incomplete, CO2 is only a proven heat retainer, it is only a term in the equation... How about methane? Sun heat? Earth axis? Earth orbit around the Sun? precession? aerosols? nitroxides? water vapor? and more? they are all part of the equation... so many that we cannot make a complete reasoning. It's in the hands of Natural chaos in the first place. Each time we think we got it... we learn that we are wrong.

  12. Attilashrugs

    It isn't warming. Manbearpig is not wearing any clothes. Who are you going to believe, those who have been trying to destroy Liberty, Capitalism and the Middle Class since its inception, or your lyin' eyes? Suckah!

    1. Fabien L

      I'll believe recorded temperatures across the globe.
      Who needs an opinion when hard facts are available?

    2. Faded Joke

      The green house theory says the heat trapping gases will cause the atmosphere to gain temperature nearer to the edge of space, without end and without respite. Yet I wonder why it has been shown that the surface of our planet is far warmer than the outer reaches of the atmosphere. Also another recent study has shown that the geo engineering efforts being employed through chemtrails are actually trapping in the heat and moisture which would other wise be released back into space overnight.

    3. Fabien L

      Geo engineering with chemtrails, that joke of a conspiracy will never fade it seems.

    4. FadedJoke

      Yes a conspiracy much like project northwoods, electrogravitics on the b-2, gulf of Tonkin incident, and the Tuskegee expirements. All of these and more are conspiracies until brought to the light of day (which since have become known) usually at great cost to the whistleblowers who should be protected under federal laws.

    5. Fabien L

      Listing other conspiracies doesn't make your Chemtrails conspiracy true.

    6. Faded Joke

      look at the time stamp it was held up. don't jump to conclusions so quick as I said I am done.

    7. rngfarrell

      No it doesn't, but it does mean that you should keep an open mind as mainstream knowledge has been proven wrong in the past. I have no horse in this particular race but it does bother me when an otherwise intelligent person can act in such an ignorant way. Guaranteed that if this particular 'conspiracy' is confirmed, you would be one of the first on the bandwagon.

    8. Fabien L

      It's not a small conspiracy, we are talking adding chemicals in all the jet fuel used on the planet. These chemicals need to come from somewhere and get delivered to the jet fuel refineries or airports.

      Jets have been used for decades. At this point, someone would have at least some proof these chemicals are added to jet fuel at some point.

      The previous real conspiracies were exposed much faster than that one and that one is much easier to prove.

      Unless, you believe only some planes have chemicals added to their fuel, but then how do you explain that those that don't, exhibit the same contrails?

      In any case, all you need to do is sample the trails and you have your proof. It wouldn't be very expensive to fly a plane in trails and sample them to prove the conspiracy. Alex Jones could easily finance several flights with all the money he makes.

    9. Faded Joke

      Actually all those "conspiracies" took decades to come out as fact. That's why I chose them. Nice try though. The biggest ones even after they are founded as accurate are still actively suppressed. Not that it really matters when more people are apt to believe what is said by the PTB over and over again. Its simple psychology. The more you hear the same lie the more likely you are to believe it.

      "The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history."
      George Orwell

    10. Fabien L

      A lot of words that don't help a bit prove the conspiracy.

    11. Faded Joke

      Sheeple make me Laugh... loud. Don't Ask questions about why, just follow the shepherd. His crook will keep you in tow. I for one don't watch television. so I am not encumbered by popular opinion, or the feeling of having to be inline with the social norm. I would rather be an outcast than to follow the plan of people who only care to justify themselves by any means. Rather I am free to view all angles of a given situation and decide for myself. Although I am sure all the sheep feel safe and protected from the misdeeds of the shepherd.

    12. Fabien L

      More words that prove nothing.

    13. Faded Joke

      No, just proving a point. Those who need to have the last word on everything do it from a stance of weakness. All it takes is a look at this thread. Who has the last word when your involved? no one but you. Grow up young man, there a big world out there.

    14. Fabien L

      You proved no point, you only went on a rant about people not believing your nonsensical conspiracy as being sheep controlled by a PTB that doesn't exist.

    15. Faded Joke

      point proven

    16. Faded Joke

      Need I compile a vast list of conspiracies which since have come to light as fact. Most at great cost,whom should obviously be protected under federal whistleblower laws rather than persecuted under the espionage act.

    17. Fabien L

      There is a conspiracy section on TDF, I am pretty sure they are all listed there. If you want to do something, explain how adding chemicals in the atmosphere to ruin the climate is advantageous to the conspirators. (excluding being an illuminati Lizard man)

    18. Faded Joke

      Rather than continuing in endless banter with a person who feels the need to first try to discredit another through personal opinion rather than fact I chose to let this thread be as it was intended a discussion to better aid in ones personal understanding of the matters at hand. I am done. Good day sir

    19. Fabien L

      Sorry, I can't come up with facts proving Chemtrails are anything else than water vapor.

    20. Kahn

      When previously good farming land has now turned into unsuitable land for more sensitive vegetation even in backyard gardens it only leads to ask why. and when that land is contaminated with aluminum and barium where it was never before it may lead some to question why. just saying. Why would monsanto want to patent aluminum resistant plant seeds at the same time donating to the geo engineering think tanks. Just becuase Fabien may think the facts are evident you must as a wise person not only except the status quo but to ask why something is rather than take the word of the PTB that the sky is falling. After all questioning the ones who rule is probably why slavery around the globe isn't as wide spread as it once was.

    21. Fabien L

      Aluminium has always been in the soil. Clay minerals are hydrous aluminium phyllosilicates. Aluminum (Al) is the most abundant metal in the earths crust, comprising about 7% of its mass.

      When soils are too acidic, aluminum that is locked up in clay minerals dissolves into the soil as toxic, electrically charged particles called ions, making it hard for most plants to grow.

      In fact, aluminum toxicity in acidic soils limits crop production in as much as half the world's arable land.

      So a Monsanto patent would be to make crops available for growing in arable soils where they wouldn't naturally grow because of the pH, not part of some conspiracy.

      I might not be wise but I studied soil chemistry and my job is growing plants.

      According to the EPA, the normal levels of Barium in soils are 100 to 3000 ppm. It's a regular component of any soil and occurs naturally in 99.4% of surface waters examined.

    22. go2green

      This is another post that shows up in many other places. What's up with that? Beginning to look like a pay for posting hot spot here.

    23. Lucifer Christ

      Judging that I can just look up on any day and see dozens of Chemtrails is proof enough for me. The sky looked nothing like this when I was a kid. I still remember the first Chemtrail I ever observed, it was 1991 and we all though the jet was on fire because we'd never seen a lasting trail that stretched across the entire horizon. Now, that trail is the norm.

    24. Fabien L

      So seeing a trail in the sky is sufficient for you to know what is in it? I dearly hope you don't go by the same standard for potable water analysis.

    25. go2green

      This exact same post can be found in several other places.

    26. go2green

      I've seen this exact same post in a couple of other places.

  13. Msdcs

    To think it is man made is to give man far more power than they can really have, bit like saying an ant can pick up a battleship, but mans vanity knows no bounds, the climate is changing but for other reasons, the whole solar system is in a 25000 year orbit of a red star 4 light years away, do the maths, 600,000 speed at a radius of 4 light years = 25000 years, we can measure the speed(we have its 600,000) and the shift of the stars(we have which is 1 degree every 72 years), so that makes the thing we orbit 4 light years away, and wow guess what, at that exact point is a red star called proxima centauri our closest star. so clear to anyone with a basic understand of things going round each other, clearly NASA don't understand these things, so this means we pass through the galactic plane every 12,500 years, (you can see the plane as that dark line in the stars and we have just entered it), last time we entered it the ice age ended, in fact go back at 12500, 25000 year intervals to can see the whole planets climate changed every time and man didn't have cars.

    But the worst events were 25000 years ago and 75000 years ago, so suggest there is a 50000 cycle, well that could be accounted for if this red star had another sun in its orbit, and wow guess what, there are 2 other yellow stars near the red star as well, alpha and beta, so these to must be in orbit of this red star to and suggest that when 3 line up that there is a bigger change, so from that we should be able to work out their orbits, I have, alpha centauri has an orbit of 3600 years and beta 9000 years and that suggest a 4th with an orbit of 50000 years (the culprit), this cant be seen so must be a brown dwarf and as we are at least 25000 years away from its affects suggest it is between 10 and 16 light years away and wont be our side and near us for another 25000 years.

    Now I am just an electrician with a 5 inch telescope and cant see these stars as they are over the south pole, so the best place to see these is over the south pole, so a telescope is needed there, there is one there but the USA have made it super secret and no one is allowed to look at the pictures, shoemaker did use his telescope in NZ to look and got very excited but he died( a truck ran him over) as he bought photos to show and they are lost and at the same time his telescope caught fire so every thing was lost.

    But that is not the most worrying thing, I have been looking at the affects on our solar system of us passing through the galactic plane as all these bad things seem to only happen then and why there are these 12500, 25000 and 50000 year cycles, it would appear that the atmosphere is compressed as we enter and decompressed as we leave, bit like sitting on a spinning office chair, put your legs out and you slow, pull them in and you speed up, and that is what is happening to the weather, so clearly the atmosphere is being compressed, this will heat it and speed up the winds including making the jet streams speed up and tilt, hence the polar vortex.

    But that is not the worst, I have been looking at the orbit of the moon and that may while we pass through the plane move off centre, so making it come close at one point and further away at the opposite point, this will create higher tides and floods and if it gets to close could cause tides of over 100 feet and wipe out all coastal cities, but mans vanity is such that he would prefer to believe it is the power of man causing it and not the power of nature so will ignore all of the above. cant tax nature but can tax man.

    1. Thinker

      "last time we entered it the ice age ended, in fact go
      back at 12500, 25000 year intervals to can see the whole planets climate
      changed every time and man didn't have cars.But the worst events were 25000 years ago and 75000 years ago, so suggest there is a 50000 cycle"

      Did you know about the comet impact 12,500-12,900 years ago?
      It's generally accepted now that it was a comet impact that was responsible for bringing about the sudden end to the ice age, by crashing into - and breaking up - the north Atlantic ice sheet, causing the Younger Dryas deep freeze period, sea level rises, and the mass extinction event that killed off the mega fauna.

    2. WTC7

      It is my understanding that the comet impact theory, which at one point may have been the favorite among quite a few others indeed, is being seriously challenged in the last few years. Recent researches indicate, among other discrepancies in this theory, that the extinction of the megafauna did not take place simultaneously on different continents but with sometimes even thousands of years difference. For example, the extinction of megafauna in Australia is estimated to have taken place some 30000 years before the Younger Dryas period. Also, the extinction of the wooly mammoth in Siberia happened later than in North America.

      That aside, the comet, even if it did hit the Earth some 12800 years ago, certainly did not bring the "sudden end to the ice age". According to the comet impact theory, the comet had quite the opposite effect - it caused a sudden cooling that lasted for over 1000 years (the Younger Dryas) before the climate warmed up again.

    3. Thinker

      The impact hypothesis may not be as "generally accepted" as I described it, it may be more controversial/up for debate than that. But I believe the case for it is still pretty strong and I that it has the majority of the scientific community leaning towards it.

      The mega fauna may not have all been wiped out at the same time around the world, but there was a mass extinction event around that time period that had a huge effect on a lot of them.

      It is thought that the impact would have helped to end the glacial period that was the last ice age, because it would have hit the northern ice sheet in N.America, causing it to break up.

      Following the impact theory, the younger dryas extreme cold/dry period (which occured between 12,800 and 11,500 years ago) is thought to have been created by the massive amounts of dust that would have been ejected into the atmosphere, blocking out the sun for a period of time.

      It is a pretty well supported theory as far as I know, but you're right in that it may not be as "accepted" as I originally portrayed it.

      It's very interesting stuff to me, I enjoy researching it. =)

    4. WTC7

      And I sincerely wish you to fully enjoy your continued research! Cheers!

    5. forbes mag

      Where do you get your "facts"? It is NOT "generally accepted" that there was a comet impact 12,500 years ago. It's merely a "sexy" idea floated with no real evidence to support it. Your thinking about science is as fuzzy as your thinking on race. Obviously you should be smoking less of that marijuana you tout so much since it's made you st***d.

    6. Thinker

      I've already addressed this if you took the time to read the comments bellow:

      "The impact hypothesis may not be as "generally accepted" as I described
      it, it may be more controversial/up for debate than that. But I believe
      the case for it is still pretty strong and I that it has the majority of
      the scientific community leaning towards it."

    7. Greg Cox

      So screw NASA and all the astrophysicists around the globe because that electrician with a 4" Newtonian? Please provide some links to support this premise that contradicts hundreds of years of scientific observation.

  14. RedMagnolia

    To the climate change deniers, so you say you have proof that human greed hasn't caused the problems facing us.
    Can you know explain to me how we are not running out of clean drinking water around the world and why it is OK to pump clean ground water into wells for fracking?
    We might figure out how to live with climate change but we aren't going to be able to figure out how to supply the world with clean drinking water. Of course to Guest below I guess we can just let all those Bangladeshis (not Indian or is it that all brown skin people look alike to you?) people that don't survive rising sea levels can just drop dead for lack of clean water.

  15. Guest

    I gave up on this documentary when they had the Indians running off at the mouth.

  16. Polar Jo

    To deniers I can only ask that they look more closely at 'who' they are following. What is the history of these people? Do they have special interests beyond human good? Have they (and they have) been paid in the past to LIE to the public and create doubt? For the rest of us, I know I need to demand more of myself, and of the so called leaders I help to elect or approve to local and regional office. I think it's true that if we have a care for who we elect locally, and do something about sustainability and divestment in our own communities, it will get easier to impact larger governments and industries.

    1. Attilashrugs

      Polar Jo, beware wolves in sheep's clothes! Altruists are extremely dangerous. Their willingness to sacrifice much (of other people's wealth, health and happiness) is never questioned because they are focused on a more "lofty" plane.
      The Americans (and English) unlike Europeans have never been creatures of ideology. We are practical, pragmatic and solve our problems ad hoc without recourse to grand theories.
      We once had a healthy skepticism to the Ism's. Time we got back to being sharp-dealing Yankees.

    2. Greg Cox

      British, not English.

  17. Kansas Devil

    We are past the point of reversal, so now it's time to figure out how to invest in the inevitable effects of climate change.
    If you can't beat climate, join it.
    I suspect that investing in beach front real estate would be the first to be sold off or heavily insured to take the money and run when the loss arrives.

    1. Fabien L

      It would probably be a better idea to invest in safe real estate where people would move after. I am sure the value of seaside land after Katrina plummeted and demand was at an all time low. The population of New Orleans in 2012 was 76% of what it was in 2000.

    2. Attilashrugs

      Katerina was a weakening Cat-4 when it reached NO. It was not some massive storm on a biblical scale! Corruption was and remains a major feature of New Orleans municipal, parish and state governments. It was the failure of the LEVEES that caused the disaster.

      Hurricanes have long ravaged the gulf coast and the southeastern Atlantic coast. It is significant that unlike the rest of North America, Native American communities were sparsely settled, there were no complex social structures like the Mississippian, the Iroquois, the Puebelos..... It is my theory that hurricanes were once more frequent and more severe.
      It is also notable that the Mississippian mound-builders may well have been adapted to life upon a great floodplain with Nile-like annual floods. Thus the floods along the river of late, might be merely regression towards the mean.

    3. Fabien L

      If the level of the oceans rises, most of the damage will come during storms. I was not justifying global warming with Katerina.

      I only used it to illustrate that buying seaside properties to try to make a quick financial gain is probably a bad idea in a rising oceans scenario.

  18. FadedJoke

    I would like to know what is not talked about in this debate. Why are the bodies in our solar system also heating up.

    1. Joe Laherty

      THE SUN is causing this through very tiny heat changes, just fractions of a percent. It is not much, as a 1% difference either hotter or cooler, would wipe out life on Earth.
      The Earth rotates around the Sun, the Solar System rotates around the Galaxy, and the Galaxy rotates around the Universe. The cosmic dust encountered in this movement affects the Sun's output.

      Megatons of dust periodically intersects our Sun's path. The Sun cools initially due to mass ingestion, and then burns a little hotter due to the added fuel. This is on a long time-scale, and is a known astronomical fact, and I believe THE major cause of climate change.
      If we study geologic history we see times of drought, and times of Ice ages. We need to look at these changes over the long term and realize that this happened before man was even here.

      ** Another thing, get a glass and put ice in it. Fill it so the water comes right to the rim. Now just leave the glass at room temp until all the ice is melted. SEE FOR YOURSELF if the water spills over. I think you will be surprised at the result!!

    2. a_no_n

      because a glass of water is comparable to all the worlds oceans *rolls eyes*

    3. Fabien L

      Now add big rocks in the middle of a pool, fill it with liquid water and put a 1 meter high ice block on top of those rocks above the surface. Let the ice melt and see if the water spills over. Yours was the most ridiculous example to deny possibility of the raise of the level of the oceans I ever read. The Antarctic ice sheet is not in the water, it's above it on land and will definitely raise the level of the oceans if it melts.


      you right everybody thinks the ice isn't melting because they see new ice every year but we not talking about the ice what covers the ocean we have to worry about the ice what covers Antarctica itself.the wind system pushing warmer ocean water under the Glaciers inland so in time those ice melt into the sea and it is freshwater and it diluting the sea,so Country like Sri-Lanka will be in trouble.what I' don't understand they know that is a problem but somehow the International Conferences still debating if this is real or not.

    5. Greg Cox

      Your analogy is bunk. An accurate one would be to fill a barrel with water and place a block of ice on a sloped surface leading to the barrel... and then grab a mop.

    6. Claude Jones

      No one who stayed awake in grade school science class would fail to understand this.