The word of the day is 'squishy'. I dont really care if its settled or not. What is it you folks want out of this, whats the upshot? The remedy is apparently a permanent, intentional recession. Prolonged negative econmic growth that would allow us to decrease carbon emissions.

LAMBERT: You "don't care" if it is settled or not? Where does THAT put you? With the "Don't give a damn what's true or not" crowd? And the ... way too obvious ... rebuttal to your suggestion, if that's what it is, that the transition to a less carbon-based economy somehow leads to a "permanent, intentional recession" ... uh, hello!?

Wow, 108. If wishing away global warming (oops, better use the softened "climate change" word) would help the economy, what would some serious study of the good old flat earth theory get us?

If a meteorologist can get cited as an authority on epochal climate, I want to be referred to as a pilot because I fly a lot.

Besides, I'm a Paul Huttner guy. I'd kill to share a studio w/Wurzer.

LAMBERT: I had no idea MPR was such a den of hotties. Do I hear any women sighing for a shot at Gary Eichten?

You're evading my question with a question. You do that all the time, you did that all the time on your radio show.

Yes, its not necessarily important whether we acknowledge global warming or not. Heck, I acknowledge it, for the sake of argument. What are we going to do about it?

I’ll answer your question. Where does it put me? I am not so strident to say that the government has no role in the economy. It does. But it is not the governments place to ration output between company A and company B, and consumer A to consumer B. Not for something as nebulous as ‘climate change’.

And although I’m certainly ideologically driven, that doesn’t come from being wed to laissez faire capitalism and the free market. Laissez faire capitalism doesn’t really exist and never will again. The thing is, your job, and mine for that matter, as well as most peoples, are made possible by excess production in the economy. Eliminating that excess production is what it will take to reduce carbon. Doing so amounts to a consciously planned, prolonged recession.

LAMBERT: Look, I'll take the euphemistic approach here and say, "I couldn't disagree more", instead of, "You couldn't be more wrong." What little is "nebulous" about climate change -- i.e. the human impact on it -- rests in the domain of the crowd who doesn't really care to ascertain what is right or wrong, as long as ... Al Gore and all he embodies ... are swatted down. That is intellectually lazy and dishonest, (since I suspect many of these people accept something is going on but don't want to give any support to "the enemy".)

Where are you getting and going with this "excess production" business. If our standard of living rests on excess production, God help us. Those of us who think we have all the brains and ambition we need to revolutionize our economy away from fossil fuels -- and that fat check we write every day to the Saudis and Iranians -- are actually kind of upbeat about this. Cleaner environment. All sorts of new industries, jobs, less American cash in the hands of medieval dynasties. Sounds good to me.

Excess production beyond what is required to house, cloth, and feed the population. This was described at the rudimentary level in Guns, Germs, and Steel.

Nebulous, as in, what are the impacts going to be? This is where there is no adequate peer review to speak of. Particularly with respect to destructive storms. We’re going to have more. No, we’re going to have less. We’re going to have more stable growing seasons. No we’re not.

This is not the basis to re-regulate an entire economy. You think we’re luddites against tech? You’re relying on a very misinformed caricature.

This is going to require some fairly draconian enforcemtn, which I’m sure some folks are more than happy to have.

Last time I checked, we import the majority of our oil from CANADIA.

LAMBERT: Our level of consumption impacts the entire world market, and vice versa. I am of course opposed to shipping dollars to Canuckistan.

So Fairbourne is a quack because he's not an official climatologist but we should listen to Douglas who last I looked, has the same education and job. Should we just take those who dare doubt "consensus" science and shoot them? At least Fairbourne backs what he says while Douglas lives in his mansion telling the rest of us how to live our lives.

I agree that the OISM folks are out there in far right field. And I agree that politics have a large role in this debate. Sourcewatch which you cite, is actually sponsored by an environmentalist that leans very left. Ditto to a lesser degree for realclimate.org. And yes, it's pathetic that we need to care about that.

I had Air America on a couple of days ago and an "expert" was explaining how electric cars are ready to replace gas powered cars. It was just the simple matter of swapping batteries instead of gassing up. Obviously this "expert" had a nose that grew as he talked.

There is a common good to be found here between the global warming issues and increasing oil prices. But I do not want to stop the debate on any of these issues, regardless if people think it's over.

We ran off and built a zillion Ethanol plants. That really worked out well. Higher food prices along with food shortages, increased water pollution, and bunch of rich millionaires.

LAMBERT: Dave, the critical difference here is between reputable climatologists -- professionals who have submitted their work to other professionals for review and independent study -- and those who aren't, like this Oregon Institute bunch, who are all too typical of what passes for "science" on the other end of this dispute. Yes, Paul Douglas lent credibility to the former, while Fairbourne has to the latter. It's the flat out difference between credible and ... bullshit. No doubt there is more we'll learn about all the mechanisms in play, but for the the IPCC crowd is the best information going -- which is supposed to be the point of anyone in the news business.

Lambert asks: Do I hear any women sighing for a shot at Gary Eichten?

I've asked around. Absolutely NOT.

LAMBERT: Weird. He could introduce them to Arne Carlson and Tim Penny.

I got your back on this argument Brian and couldn't agree more.

In my fantasy USA of the last 10-15 years, corporate leaders with a bit of vision and guts existed back in run-up to 1998 Kyoto, and instead of running away from the HUGE business opportunities presented by a global economy facing 'climate change' a couple of them actually rolled up their sleeves and took steps to invent and manufacture solutions...and thus created jobs that our listless economy could really use now to sell to India and China and thus keep our dollar stronger in the world.

Instead we had the 108 crowd engaging all their brainpower in denial putting us 10-15 years behind Europe et al in providing solutions. Where do the best wind turbines come from? The best solar panels? Hybrid cars? Oh no, I mentioned hybrids, the most real and live example of USA's lack of leadership. Where would GM or Ford be today if they had developed the Prius instead of the Hummer?

What would we gain indeed...how silly is that? Turn it around dude and ask 'what would we lose by acting on it?' Cleaner air, no reliance on foreign oil, a stronger dollar, a stronger economy, leadership, respect...more.

That is the lost point of our lost decade denying global warming--not what scientist I will believe, not what government policy we should debate--rather when will a USA business leader step up and be the first to earn his decadent compensation package. All I have seen for over a decade are thieves and robbers hiding in their money bins from the world outside and its future.

LAMBERT: Thanks, I was doing an awful lot of shootin' here.

Toyota has been subsidizing the costs of the Prius to this point with profits on their other cars. That may be smart, that may be stupid - but theyre able to do it. Theyre not in a precarious position like Ford or GM. But they don't make money on the Prius.

Whats the lefty objection to nuclear power at this point? That an abundant supply of cheap electricity would allow Americans to continue to consume goods and services at the rate they are accustomed?

LAMBERT: It will surprise me if there isn't a re-think on nuclear energy -- even without resolving all of its security, waste and cost factors -- but those of us who accepting ... the best science and information currently available ... see significant opportunities in the transition to permanent (a nuclear plant is not) renewable, non-polluting energies. This assertion that WE are grasping at any flimsy rationale that will deprive commuters of their Ford Expeditions is silly, and I might say, self-marginalizing if you're the one making it.

Brian:
Thanks for weighing in on this. I couldn't have been more pissed to see Walsh's story without at least a mention of who this bogus OISM group really is (and they are not scientists). The problem with the way Walsh wrote the story is that it implies that there is a debate among real scientists, when there is really only a debate among politicians.
Unfortunately, the political debate continues to center around two questions which have already been answered: 1) are we experiencing climate change/global warming, and 2) is human activity responsible for this change. Answers: yes and yes. Instead, the political debate should be concentrated around, what regulatory measures should be put in place that effectively balance the environment with the economy, i.e. outlawing the burning of fossil fuels might be a bit of a unnecessary drain on the global economy (tongue planted firmly in cheek).
To return to my original point, why would Walsh write the story the way he did? Isn't the story really, why would Mike Fairbourne sign his name to this petition run by this right-wing political nut job?

-Bill

P.S. Keep up the good work and don't let the 108's of the world get you down.

LAMBERT: You raise an interesting point on the Walsh story. I don't know if he omitted or ignored it, or if some editor stepped in. I can tell you from long experience with daily newspaper editing that any reference to OISM such as I made here would have hit the cutting room floor for reasons of "personal opinion", "beside the point of the story" or "unnecessarily inflammatory". The thinking at a newspaper is generally more enlightened than at a TV station ... but not by much.

Yep, it was 40 last night at the compound, on May 20th. Too cold for the frogs to croak in the pond.

I'm all a-feared of the global warming.

Save the polar bears!

LAMBERT: No. "Save the Brain Cells"

How many Walsh's are "newspaper writers" in this town?

LAMBERT: How many Bertrams does it take to sink a ship of logic?

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

LAMBERT: I'm guessing your supplier is back in town.

Let's see:

Credible, respected local meteorologist offers support for view opposing that of local media pundit / known far left liberal.

Column ensues taking respected weather professional to task for having opinion opposite that of politically correct global warming hysteria-promoters.

Critic of liberal columnist asks pointed question of liberal, gets question in return instead of an answer.

Critic accuses liberal pundit of same tactic from the liberal's prior failed "talk" radio show.

Discuss.

LAMBERT: You don't need anyone else for this "discussion".

Global warming is an unproven canard that fits neatly in with the liberal / socialist / PCer position that we must all drive the same car, eat the same amount of food, and use the same amount of energy, and have everyone else like us.

The Obama-nation even says so.

LAMBERT: Good god, man. Don't you have a day job? You know, skinning small animals in your basement, photographing women's footwear, making toy guillotines?

Is the increasing frequency of storms a product of global warming, per respected climatologists?

LAMBERT: I can't say. But the increasing frequency of contentiousness certainly is.

I wonder how BJ's position on global warming would have changed if Dan Quayle had made "An Inconvenient Truth"?

Granted, science wasn't one of Dan's strong suits, but it's worth a moment's ponder.

It's gotten to the point where McCain/Obama could say two plus two equals four and people from the opposing ideology would disagree just because McCain/Obama said it.

LAMBERT: Yeah, after both McCain and Bush himself have given up the losing battle of denying this I can only assume the true "leadership" at work here are the usual suspects ... Sean Hannity, Rush, Lewis, etc. Great science minds, all of them.

Why can't you say? I suppose because they can't say.

Historically, is there a demonstrated relationship between ppm of co2 in the atmosphere and climate change?

Whats been the experience of cap and trade in Europe to this point?

Brian, whats a good scientist to read up on who is concerned about global warming?

Do you think Al Gore is really confidence inspiring as the titular (boy I love that word) head of the movement? Doesnt he have shortcomings?

LAMBERT: I could do nothing BUT point out the obvious with your line of argument here, 108. But your position is political -- not scientific. Al Gore is not the titular head. Try the chairmen of the IPCC.

Hannity, Rush, and Lewis are not climate change deniers. Denying climate change is like denying the color blue. Characterizing them as such is flimsy and self-marginalizing, if you're the one doing it.

They are properly skeptical of the end game. Rush is fond of quoting a guy named Roy Spencer. What is it that might make his opinion unacceptable?

LAMBERT: Again ... and again and again ... Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Jason Lewis are taking a purely political (and commercial) position on this issue. Science, factual accuracy and reality has nothing to do with it.

Lambo, my man, Bertram Jr. is bringing down the quality of the exchanges here. I could barely get through it all. It's so tired and boilerplate and unworthy.

I suggest you institute a no-blogonym rule. I think you'd get a lot less of this nonsense if global warming deniers and bigots had to man up and use their own names.

Anonymity gets you the sort of rhetoric for which bathroom stalls, the underside of bridges and talk radio are known. It's the cloak of the coward. Take it away.

BTW, I've been out of town, at what point did local TV weatherman, Mike Fairbourne's opinion about anything beyond tomorrow's hi, low and likelihood of precipitation come to matter?

LAMBERT: Your point is entirely valid, Jimmy. I seriously doubt some of these people would risk sounding as ill-informed and knee-jerk contrarian if they were required to identify themselves. But as I've said, I find their opinions -- emphasis on "opinion" -- illuminating of a kind of entrenched, regularly enabled psychosis in this country. It's why we rank down with Turkey and Bulgaria in terms of sophisticated attitudes toward things like demonic possession, angels, creationism ...

Bri...why do you have such a ****-on for Joe Soucheray? Can't men of good-will honorably disagree?

LAMBERT: For the record, I like Joe. Not personally, of course, that's almost impossible. But he's an amusing world-class curmudgeon, and his radio show, even with his pet, knucklehead-pandering tropes, is still pretty good. My shots at Joe are 90% shtick. I mean, what am I supposed to say? That I love him? Come on, I don't think his wife is on record with anything that extreme.

Lambert, you're just low enough to be a full-blown communist hack! Your trashing a credible, yet, well-respected meteorologist on a fragile TV station that made a rational, skeptical opinion on Global Climate Change. And now, you are pouting like a five year old on this blog because some weatherman disagrees with your political agenda. Give me a break bud! Take your leftist, Al Gore deity crap and stick it where the sun don't shine! Global Warming does not exist, based on the historical and natural climate data over the last thousands of years.

Hence, I'm guessing this is your way to rant and rave over the firing of your pal Paul Douglas at WCCO TV.

BTW, you didn't report on the fact that Mark Seeley at the University of Minnesota Climatology office said in an interview on TPT "Almanac" that much of the record high temperatures in Saint Paul around the early to middle 20th Century, was due to weather instruments being put on top of flat, concrete roofs where the sun shines down from overhead, causing an inaccurate reading of the current air temperature. Therefore, it would had been impossible to make a scientific judgment upon whether weather instruments in those days would make a reliable data guess on the premise of increase world temperatures. I'm guessing you didn't want to cover that story because of your social liberal activist mindset with Gore and his band of merry liars.

LAMBERT: Jack my man, you win some kind of award for hitting every imaginable rhetorical button. Hell, I'd almost imagine you've heard this kind of verbiage word-for-word somewhere, probably daily.

Hey, I'm just trying to get legitimate questions in before your proposed eco-stasi is imposed and debate is cut off.

I am playing honorably here. They're legitimate points. If you can't answer, than your wed to GCC merely because it fits into your overall worldview.

LAMBERT: Look 108, as you can tell I have limited patience with this "debate". If for no other reason than it is over ... among everyone for whom science trumps politics. I get the frustrated rage among right-wingers about Al Gore. There isn't much doubt how history and the international community respects him and reviles the gentleman and policies so ardently favored by the same people constantly ginning up "arguments" against climate change. But, I gotta tell you. This is purely echo chamber bullshit. It's a free country. So you can spout and stomp and rail all you want and "demand" your adversaries jump through an endless series of hoops to continue playing a silly partisan game, but there just is no substance to your position. You may want to check and see if you're playing with yourselves.

"and don't let the 108's of the world get you down."

"...skinning small animals in your basement, photographing women's footwear..."

"...bringing down the quality of the exchanges here."

"...unworthy."

...ill-informed and knee-jerk contrarian..."

Until Jack chimed in most of this discussion was calm and reasonable. Brian (and Jim), just because someone doesn't share your view doesn't mean you need to denigrate them.

LAMBERT: The issue here is self-denigration b y people who want/demand to be taken seriously but can't get passed rationalizing an unsupportable "scientific position" with tired, transparently gimmicky political rhetoric. As I say, you're welcome to your echo chamber. Knock yourselves out convincing each other the world's professional climatologists -- whose work has been vetted by their international peers -- are secret Al Gore acolytes furtively plotting to shove American society back into caves and a diet of tree roots. But that is ridiculous -- delusionally ridiculous -- and, frankly, unworthy of an adult conversation.

Gee, "Jack," I wasn't aware Dr. Mark Seeley was a global warming denier. I'm guessing that'll come as news to him as well. And I also wasn't aware that the entire theory of human-caused global warming turned on temperature readings from atop some buildings in St. Paul, MN.

Guess it take the perspicacity of a cherry-picking sophist like yourself to make those kinds of disparate and erroneous connections for us.

For this sort of commentary, you should be issued crayons, not a computer.

LAMBERT: I'm waiting for the first reference to that '06 report out of one guy in Perth that every talk radio host and fan quoted as a conclusive rebuttal to the IPCC.

Al Gore's misuse of them notwithstanding, the Mauna Loa Observatory readings seemed to suggest that the rise of co2 in the atmosphere in the last 10 years was due substantially to the Chinese' heavy use of coal. The western world's output had been reasonably stable over the last 3 decades.

Decreasing our emissions by some economic mechanism is likely to create slack that the less developed world will fill.

What obligation are we under to do that? Is it smart policy?

LAMBERT: "Reasonably stable"? Oh, good god, man.

You don’t want to debate at all. Fine. I respect your autonomy over topic selection, and will bow out. But this is really characteristic of the entire movement. The left wants to close the matter on the basis of a couple of mythologies they’ve constructed: that the science is settled and they’re aren’t important questions left to discuss. The science changes daily for crying out loud, and often contradicts the previous ‘concerned’ expert.

And this is political. Science has always been subject to the demands of politics, for the better or worse. Most often for the better. Politics is negotiation of allocation. You may wish naively, but this isn’t going to be different – we have an electoral process, at least until it can be replaced with the technocracy you pine for. Oh, we’d be so much better off if we could leave everything to the experts.

You yourself are real comfortable caricaturizing, my man. Too often as a fallback position.

LAMBERT: "A COUPLE MYTHOLOGIES THEY'VE constructed." ... Think about it.

All this discussion doesn't matter much anyway. If trends continue, the problem of climate change will largely go away on January 20, 2009.

LAMBERT: At that point -- I hope -- we can move on to the relevant questions of what best to do.

Hey, what's your take on the Kensington Runestone?

LAMBERT: It's another Al Gore-propogated hoax. A plot by squishy liberals to turn us all back into arthritic Vikings, huddled in caves gnawing at roots.

You’re really overstating the degree of unanimity of support for the IPCC even among people who would be sympathizers. There was a public conflict in 2006 over the way the panel reinterpreted the data to match the summary, particularly with respect to storms.

Most recently, we’ve got a study out of the UK in the last month that would contradict the IPCC with respect to storms, by another guy who’s a concerned scientist.

All of which is to say, there should be no reasonable expectation this conversation should be drawn to a close. Makes this Fairbourne discussion look like a tempest in a teapot.

LAMBERT: You guys want this split into the same old tired them vs. us, liberals vs. true-Americans brawl. Where I might do that with some other topic -- madrassas in Inver Grove Heights -- the shameless cherry-picking and grasping for the vaguest toe-hold to make a partisan stand is just, as I say, silly. It should be beneath informed adults. I'm not saying the IPCC fully understands every facet and consequence of the radical spike in "anthropogenic" climate change, and there is no doubt plenty to further research on the effects on violent weather systems. But ... is climate change occurring? Yes. Is human activity a significant contributing factor? Yes. From there you can start fighting over the policy solutions.

Levity: Throughout my life I've been fascinated by the Kensington Runestone. I'd like to believe it, but the doofusses doing the best research would like to tie it to the Knights Templar.

Tieing it all in: In my fancies, I'd like to think my ancestors were there plying the cold waters off Greenland in 1000 AD. That was only possible because of the Medieval Warming Period though, which speaks to a different weather power than man made climate change.

Cya and have a nice weekend.

LAMBERT: 108 ... sun light ... fresh air ... cocktails.

Kudos to Brian for actually publishing the various rants and answering to them. Sadly, the debate has left anything factual and gone back to the left versus right crap that will get us no where.

Maybe the next appropriate blog is ideas of how we work on the issue and perhaps then a healthy debate. Even though I lean right, I strongly believe we need to address the issue, regardless what we call it. Has anyone visited their local gas pump lately? Fossil fuels are in serious trouble and we need a cohesive energy policy or global warming will be the least of our worries. My answer -- solve the fossil fuel crisis for the short-term with more domestic production. In 5-10 years, tell everyone we will be dramatically cutting back on fossil fuel domestic production and imports plus raising the CAFE standards by 30-50%. In the meantime, offer extensive tax credits for all alternative energy options and see which one sticks. Also - shutdown ethanol ASAP before it further damages food prices and kills poor countries.

We can't fix any of this without sound solutions. We need to give people time to switch to more economical vehicles (hopefully hybrids or electric cars when available)

Jim, your comment on calling out those who disagree to essentially shut them up was especially troubling to me. If we reach a point that people cannot disagree for whatever reason in our country, then it is time to pack up and leave. There have been way too many "facts" in our past that have turned into "fiction" and many cases where one or two whistle blowers changed the course of history.

Granted the Internet has opened a whole new avenue for wing nuts of all ages, but something tells me the intelligent reader can figure out who they are.

LAMBERT: Sadly, unless there is some serious consciousness-raising about conservation in this country, a dramatic push for drilling -- off Florida and California would only forestall the inevitable. Reduced consumption, by whatever means possible, is the easiest, least painful and most immediately effective response to the fossil fuel dilemma, and face it, sky high prices -- i.e. free market pressures -- will push us in that direction faster than anything. I'm willing to consider fast tracking nuclear, but only with some kind of mandated, proportionate push for wind, solar and cellulosic fuels.

Look, "Dave," my point was that the worthless claptrap and blatant bigotry pumped out by Bertram, Jr. in particular, does not deserve the anonymity of the blog. It's an abuse of it. As far as I'm concerned, you can post your adorably earnest posts in secure anonymity.

Read Platt's blog and his assessment of the essential worthlessness of most of what gets posted on most open sites like this one. I argue over there as well that at the heart of it is the anonymity of these sites. As long as people have the cloak of anonymity to hide behind, then we will continue to have to wade through baseless invective, talk radio boilerplate and intellectually-dishonest cant. Without social accountability, people will say damn near anything.

Newspapers don't allow it. Why does the blogosphere?

LAMBERT: I'm generally in favor of the "essential worthlessness" of bog comments, anonymous or, in your case, Jimmy, bravely otherwise. It's not like we don't know what each other's opinions are. But I'm fascinated by the dialogue, and as you bore into where this stuff comes from and what the fundamental inspirations are. There isn't enough sportsman-like thrust and parry in the modern talk environment. When one side isn't completely isolated from the other the "dialogue" usually flames into invective in a split second. Anonymity may be chickenshit, but in an odd way people will actually say what they think in ways they wouldn't if they put their name to their comment. Most of course are perfectly civil ... and their civility highlights the irrationality of the nuttiest.

Dave has the answer but for some reason wants to delay implementation. Dave writes:

"...solve the fossil fuel crisis for the short-term with more domestic production. In 5-10 years, tell everyone we will be dramatically cutting back on fossil fuel domestic production and imports plus raising the CAFE standards by 30-50%."

The fossil fuel crisis (I'm assuming he means skyrocketing gas prices) is already causing people to cut back. SUV sales are way off. If you want less gas consumption don't think of $4 (or $8) gas as a problem. It's the answer! If gas gets to $12 CAFE won't even matter because consumer will be DEMANDING fuel efficient vehicles.

LAMBERT: Exactly.

108: You're merely hairsplitting and nibbling at the margins with Lambert on the fact of human-caused global climate change. There simply is not a credible difference of opinion among the larger sceintific community on climate change. As Brain has said, where's the honest debate? There simply isn't one raging amongst those who actually study the science.

Yes, there are some dissenters and quibblers. On what large question of human existence are there not. I understand the belief that the moon landings were done on an L.A. soundstage still enjoy traction with a lot of people who prefer to by blogonyms.

But human-caused climate change is not a "six of one half a dozen of the other" sort of a discussion. It simply is not.

I do take your point that there is likely no viable political solution. Just watch people's behavior on the pick up level at the airport when there's no cop present. Pigs. People revert to the default setting deep in the folds of their limbic systems. Hog space. Worry about making your pick regardless of how thoroughly you clog up the larger operation of the pick up area. Just sit there and idle as long it damn well takes. Enlightened self interest is not a widely-embraced concept.

You're absolutely right that Draconian measures that would be required to bring about even siginificant mitigation, much less reversal, of human-caused global climate change have no chance of being enacted anywhere.

I regard global climate change a fait accompli. The mass dislocations, privations, regional wars, disease, crop failures that will follow as surely as night follows day will play out as they will. Reduced energy use will follow not from prescient public policy but from higher energy costs driven by scarcity and the lingering demand of outmoded systems.

As with all massive change, it will be painful, inhuman, devestating, unjust and geographically disproportinate. The main perpetrators will likely sufer far less than those already living at subsistence levels. We haven't really evolved that much, just our technologies.

I'm grateful that I'll miss the worst of it.

LAMBERT: Well, I know I'm feeling better.

Talk about a blog home run! It's like turning on a tap, isn't it? Please sir, may we have more? Lemme suggest some topics to further incite the opinion-over-fact crowd:

1. Evolution, yes or no?

2. Stem cell research, good or bad?

3. Oswald, lone gunman or patsy?

4. Wisconsin--woodsy paradise, or Packer-obsessed alcoholic tragedy?

5. Sigourney Weaver striptease at the end of "Alien"--gratuitous or essential to the story? (All right, that's not a real question...everyone knows it was essential to the story.)

6. Superman or Batman?

LAMBERT: You sir are nothing but trouble. If I follow your thinking in this discussion of scientific fact vs. opinion Sigourney Weaver's strip to her skivies in "Alien" is Newtonian science and anyone who says otherwise is profoundly anti-intellectual? Is that about right?

I second Dave's kudos. This is a concise thread of what is wrong with the USA. Head shaking, finger pointing, no action, all bluster over distraction, and if the forces of status quo have their way, nothing changes...why?

Are they really comfortable with the way things are? What are they really saving or protecting? Certainly not the environment, not the country given its not-so-great future with our oil-based flat-lined economy...what is so good in their lives that they want to extend it?

Here is my life--I'm okay, I have a job WITH health insurance, but I have kids and I have a conscience, and I think the USA can do better than the status quo.

So, I drive a Prius--48 mph, I owe Centerpoint $69 for gas and Xcel $16 for electric last month, my water bill says I used 1 unit last month, and I think that helps our country, but I want more for my country, actually I demand more from and for my country.

Dave mentions CAFE standards, when Joe Biden was still campaigning, he was caught on YouTube answering a question in New Hampshire where he simply stated 'if the USA had the same CAFE standards as Europe today, we would not have to import ANY FOREIGN OIL'...doesn't that statement stop you, it did me.

Not the proposed Europe CAFE of 2010 or 2015, but the standard of 2007! ZERO foreign oil achieved today just by driving a reasonable car instead of a boat.

So, all those gas-guzzling SUVs actually do matter, don't they. I'm not asking, I'm telling.

For the next 5 months, when you get into your 100% unnecessary SUV (you doing any 4-wheeling this summer?), and for the rest of the 7 months of the year (except for those 6-8 days when you MIGHT need a little extra traction--hasn't bothered me these last 3 winters), when you get into your 99% unnecessary SUV...what do you think...and then what SHOULD you think?

Anyway, as sad as the USA is about cars, it is sadder in many other human ways...and this thread illuminated most of them and for that I thank Brian.

It reminded me of all the ideas that get sent off to some committee to be studied yet again, then die...of every idea that gets shot down by some loud-mouthed, over-active and outright abusive critic (because it is so easy to be a critic and so hard to stand up with a new idea).

It also made me realize that all these 'small government types' who promise to smother government in the bathtub, actually LEAP to raise the government to protect them against on any idea that they fear upsets the status quo.

I can only guess it is to protect some investment they inherited from their daddy's trust fund, because there are a lot of good ideas that never get funded while they try to preserve their granddad's investment in Standard Oil back in the 40s.

Do they realize Exxon/Mobil invests next to 0% of their gross income in alternative energy? That even Jay Rockefeller sent a letter to Exxon/Mobil to urge them to invest more in alternative energy...Doesn't that bother them? Or is it truly all about the next quarter's results to these people? Is there no world to them beyond the next 3 months?

What will they do when the next 3 months finally fizzle...and it will eventually, but does it have to be when China or India goes solar/wind? Has the USA turned completely from a global innovator, will they be the late adopter now, after all the profits have been squeezed out of it. Based on the confusion and distractions of the 108s and BJs...yes.

LAMBERT: One of the great ironies the "Al Gore liberals want to destroy America crowd" is that they have so little faith in the ingenuity and ambition of this country. The thought of making any shift in their standard of living is only a thing of bleakness and doom. Is anyone's life that much worse off if they have to drive a car that weighs a ton less than the thing in their driveway today?

Yep, those videos of the ice caps melting, the fish dying, the polar bears encroaching on low-lying communities, the lakes disappearing in South America, the frogs with seven legs....yeah, that was all filmed on a sound stage in La-La Land for the purpose of deceiving the people. Global warming doesn't just mean it's getting hot outside, it changes whole systems--things can get really cold, weather can get really extreme and the air quality can get really shitty. I can't believe you guys actually think that there is a "global warming" conspiracy--like there is something SOOOO horrible about trying to improve the CAFE standards, make fuel alternatives and cleaning up the air, lakes and land. Brian thanks for having some balls.

LAMBERT: Even if you decide that for purely political reasons you're going to reject "Al Gore's" climate change argument, how do you fail to see the dramatic upside to reducing oil consumption?

Brian, good thread. The only thing better than your topics and your stellar writing is your snappy response to the trolls.

LAMBERT: I have a sick affinity for trolls. I made need to up my medication.

Jim, it really is Dave. No kidding. But I get your point.

For others -- my reason for delaying things a bit and feeding the fossil fuel problem with more supply is economics. I am concerned that many people are not prepared for the current oil prices and severe damage could be gone in combination with the housing mess. So for me, a few years for people to get their house in order and retire the SUVs/trucks before the whammy hits. Immediate tax credits to get innovation rolling.

I completely agree that high oil prices will force change (you are speaking to my fiscally conservative roots!) I just get concerned about the impact on Joe six pack and I know government will step in if the market doesn't correct itself in the short-term. I sure can't argue against leaving things as is and letting the market dictate the future.

I still wonder why Washington is doing nothing useful about this. Not just the Republicans, the Democrats have been absent also.

LAMBERT: I find it unimaginable that a new administration with a "sustainable majority" in Congress won't at least make an effort to address long term energy issues ... something we haven't seen really ever.

Wait! Aren't you guys the "dissent is the highest form patriotism" folks?

On the other hand, I thought John Kerry was a troll.

LAMBERT: "Dissent" implies a certain level of serious, logic-infused thought.

Yeh, the debate is all over when Douglass brings in the big guns like Prince Charles to tell us about climatology. Sounds sort of desperate. But anyway, I`mm going to e-mail Douglass and have him comment on the latest news that Jupitor may be warming. Must be from all those suvs-no wait-could it be the sun? No way.

LAMBERT: Do I really to say anything here?

Hey, it was 45 degrees at the heavily fortified compound this morning.

I got your polar bears - right here!

How's that for intelligent discourse?

(Isn't this a fashion magazine?)

LAMBERT: "THIS" is the internets. Check your tubes.

www.globalwarminghoax.com

Lambo: Point well taken. I acknowledge the value of just getting this stuff out there into the zeitgeist and that there is a vulgar gestalt from which larger lessons might be smelted and sorted from the dross.

But when it comes to garden-variety bigotry and cheap, intellectually dishonest cant merely on loan from already overexposed sources such as talk radio, then anonymity becomes, not a safe haven from which to honestly speak from the heart without fear of political reprisal, but a cloak behind which a malevolent coward can hurl bigoted innuendo and insult without fear of appropriate social sanction.

In other words, some things should be beyond the pale and considered an abuse of the courtesy of anonymity that poisons the well.

LAMBERT: Well, speaking for myself, I kind of know what is what.

So now jleinfelder seeks to declare who and what can be discussed via the internets, and who can and should deserve anonymity.

So...typical of the entitled, "special" mindset of the loony left, truly they who doth know all and better.

Attacks and labels on thought. Accusations on motive the evidence, once again belched forth in plain sight.

A hatred for the truth emanating from the ever pervasive and successful non-mainstream media that has laid bare their folly and scurrilous claims.

Ah, but we do know and recognize such pathology here on the "right" side of things, rendering the left's spastic grating squeaks quite, shall we say, limp?

Can I just finish my waffle now?

Am I under sniper fire here?

Signed,

Bitter and non-elite gun owner who votes

LAMBERT: It doesn't get much more elite than an armed compound, does it?

When jleinfelder returns from riding his ten-speed on his hemp and patchouli shopping trip, have him read up:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/05/16/where-are-all-the-drowning-polar-bears/

Heh.