In both cases, for Sully he would have to admit he was wrong about something, and that's never going to happen. Have you ever read  his site? He has an excuse for everything except blaming his own faulty abilities to have good judgment. I don't expect that to change.

Great Post.  It really is that simple.. Do you trust experts and scientists and become educated on a certain subject or do you follow along with what a proven political hack thinks?

I guess I might think differently if we didn't already have too much proof of the Bush Adminstration's incompetence and desire to purposely mislead for political and personal gain.

Why even bother giving attention to anything this self-loather writes?  Just because he dislikes the GOP's homophobia (read: treatment of him), doesn't make him any less of a neocon.  Not to mention, he's arrogant, self-important, and self-centered with little regard for any other human being.  It's time to stop paying attention to him.  

There is a grain of truth in statements about climate change. This is that we don't know when the "tipping point" will be reached.

This, of course, assumes that there is such a thing as a tipping point. We already have many cases of problems created by human excess. Just this week there were two stories on fish. One on the collapse of the salmon population in the Klamath river and the other of the impending extinction of blue fin tuna in the Atlantic.

The first is the direct result of diverting water last year to farmers instead of to the river. The second is caused by over fishing for sushi lovers.

Yesterday the NY Times had a story on new developments in converting coal to diesel fuel. Plants are being built even though this produces much more carbon than other alternatives. Coal is "cheap" and plentiful, so the environment is ignored.

We have not seen any politicians willing to ask people to make actual sacrifices to lower our excessive resource use. No leadership, no change.

Sullivan may not have the exact position on the environment that we'd like to see, but...that article you reference was a stinging critique of Dick Cheney's hypocrisy.  

The argument he was trying to make was this:  if Cheney was willing to move heaven and earth to find WMDs in Iraq on the "1%" chance they existed, then he should also be willing to act on the environment if there is at least a "1%" chance that human behavior is a causal factor (e.g. making things worse).

The quote, then,  you pull from the piece was Sullivan's way of saying,"Look..if this is the 'debate' as it stands, then it definitely meets the 1% criteria."  Translation:  radical conservatives should be in favor of government controls to combat pollution, there is a climate crisis we need to address.

I think, in fact, that this Sullivan piece was at attempt to convince Conservatives--using their own backwards logic--that they should be accepting Gore's arguments and following his leadership on the environment.  And if not, then they should not expect anyone to follow their logic on national security.

So that was the point of the piece.  This article, here, makes it seem like Sullivan just set out to question whether global warming exists--which is a bit misleading.

(and BTW:  I have a generally low view of Sullivan...)

Be hard to top the conversion of cow manure to natural gas in digesters for a green technology.  Joe Lieberman should be able to supply one digester all by himself and actually do some good for a change.

The usual rabid anti-environmentalists like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace would inhibit the development of digester technology by restricting the cows per acre for dairies and thus maintain pollution levels.

If one argues that the overwhelming point of view of knowledgeable scientists is proof certain of the causes of global warming, one understands nothing at all about science.

Pity that political science interferes with the old-fashioned kind.

If one argues that one should ignore the chances of nearly unimaginable catastrophe if scientific opinion is correct because scientific truth is uncertain and ephemeral, one might be accused of faulty logic.

It has really pleased me to see the buzz around "An Inconvenient Truth," and how much press global warming is now getting (finally). It's great to see politicians debating the issue. As you all know, and as is discussed on the terror/civil liberties issue, debate is the first step. It is the kind of step that will outweigh the "belief based" model put forth by Bruh21, and enable reason to prevail.

Two explorers just reached the North Pole and became the first people to do so in the summer. However, they fear they may be the last to do so not in a boat, as they witnessed many indicators of warmer temperatures. You can learn more on the expedition's site: http://www.projectthinice.org/index.php

You say that some day, these people will be gone and politics will stop being a parlor game for the rich and smug.

I tend to agree, but my question is "When?"

O)bviously from the looks of things in Mexico, it woun't be soon and given the head-up-the-butt nature of the American electorate,, I don't hold out a lot of hope for the land of the Utterly Stupid and Addlebrained.