Shellenberger and Nordhaus say, on one hand, that the regulatory methods used to reduces acid rain in the 90s are not applicable to CO2 emissions today. "[A]n apples to oranges comparison," they claim.

Then turn around and make an apples to oranges comparison of their own: "[M]aking fossil fuels more expensive" seems to be their apple and "massive government investment in technology" is the orange. We can do both. The question is: should we do both... and more. The economics of the situation is only the first step.

"But first [the greens] must do away with the fiction that the market will set the price for carbon pollution." As my brother Joe argues in his companion piece, many are "making the case for both technology investment and a high price for fossil fuels"

The right has forgotten its own argument. The exact opposite of right wing political correctness is now on the front burner. Not too long ago, Reaganites were insisting that individual choices were influenced by tax policy. They pointed to graphs and curves and such. As we now know, Reagan/Bush/Bush were just driven by greed and incompetence and didn't really give a hoot about long term consequences. And the long term consequences of irresponsible tax cuts were a disaster.

And now, when policy is being formulated with long term consequences in mind, conservatives have flip flopped. The "drill baby drill" crowd says that lowering prices will affect behavior, but the "I want to keep my gas guzzler" crowd doesn't think that raising prices will affect behavior.

Obama's "post partisan" campaign was hijacked by the GOP into am insistence on "bi partisan" legislation. But we should ignore those who have been so wrong in the past and pay attention to those who were right. What the final policies should be is open to debate. The direction of those policies is not. The problems, now and in the future, are severe, and require a severe change in behavior.

Of course the US should follow international law. Of course the US should follow US law. Of course the self-styled "Christian Nation" types should Do What Jesus Would Do.

But this country is still held captive by the far right, who just don't let facts get in their way. By "branding" the Republican Party with discipline and strong emotional politics, no one on the far right can admit that any of their values is wrong.

Cognitive Dissonance is the theory that people can't hold two competing viewpoints in their head. They will resolve their disparate viewpoints into one, even if the facts warrant otherwise. And then they'll be emotionally committed to their denial.

Most in the US get it. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/etc. were more than wrong, they were criminals. Most of the people reading this knew it a long time ago. But Obama still has to worry about a whole bunch of people who are clinically insane. The "America First" crowd wants to secede. The "president is always right" crowd has done little more than attack the president. The "guns will keep us safe from tyranny" bunch has meekly let their rights be stripped away.

Trouble is brewing from the extremists. Now that adults are in charge, what do we do with our wastrel children? We have to purge criminals from the government and hold people responsible for their actions. But an ever smaller group of wild-eyed radicals is threatening an ever larger escalation of political and physical violence. We must tread carefully, but we will eventually come to grips with the Taliban wing of the GOP.

One of the differences between journalism and blogging is primary sources. Investigative, on the scene, reporting uses attributed quotes, eyewitness accounts and official documents. Blogging is commentary, Op Ed columns; valuable for perspective but informed opinions must be built on objective reporting. There are intelligent people doing either, with variations on responsibility and authenticity, but reporting needs to be as close to the actual event as possible.

So, here's my challenge to Glenn and others: Simply don't use unattributed quotes in your supporting arguments. While Glenn, Kos, Atrios, etc are smart and offer good analysis, unless they go to an actual source or do an actual on the record interview -- which they do sometimes -- they're pundits and not reporters. When slinging one's opinion, however informed, simply don't talk about sources who are too scared to talk on the record.

And chide those who do. If you look over past articles appearing in major newspapers or news web sites and ignore the unattributed quotes, the real skill -- or lack of journalistic integrity -- comes through.

Let's encourage professionalism with a hammer AND don't let poor journalism enter the debate at all.

The 60 Minutes piece featured Barack Obama supporting Clean Coal due to potential innovations. While the report didn't stop for specifics, various people held out various hopeful messages about using our vast reserves of coal in a more efficient and green manner.

But it's too late for half-assed solutions. As my brother (and frequent salon.com contributor) Joe Romm said in the report, we're not even sure the four billion dollar remediation effort currently on one plant will be a permanent solution.

The problem isn't using coal poorly, it's using the carbon-spewing method at all. Improvements would have helped fifty years ago, but we are in danger now. The dirty Republicans have been in power since 1995 and tore down the EPA when Bush came in office. Because we're a decade and a half behind, we have to hustle to catch up.