Please cite some references for your claims.

I'll get things started by pointing you toward a wiki that has an index for debunking claims such as yours: http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Climate_models_are_not_reliable/don%27t_include_clouds_and/or_other_feedbacks

For me, the science at its essence it really quite simple. Svante Arrhenius first calculated the impact of increased CO2 concentration on the earth's radiative balance over 100 years ago. The basic underlying physics and chemistry are really, really well established.

What's really complex and less well understood are all the positive and negative feedback loops that happen once things start to warm a bit. But until someone can document a negative feedback cycle that is strong enough to counter the fundamental warming dynamic and the various well-documented positive feedbacks (for example: Arctic ice reflects sunlight; melting Arctic ice means less reflection and more absorption => more warming, a positive feedback), I'm pretty damn worried.

Climate science isn't perfect, there are lots of unknowns. But the classic argument of "we don't know enough so we shouldn't worry about it" fails on both factual and logical grounds. We do know enough, and even if we didn't, the prudent course of action based on what we do know would entail curbing emissions.

Here's another link re: Arctic ice that should freak you out: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3900

I apologize for the juvenile humor below, but given the number of f-bombs thrown around in this story, it seems almost appropriate:

"and I laid awake at night," appears to suffer from a dropped word or two that might clarify things:

"and I would get laid, awake, at night,"

OK all you corrupt bastards out there, go find a hole to hide in for the next eight years, because Rahm's the sheriff's new deputy and YOU'RE NEXT.

I couldn't really parse your post, but I know how to easily debunk it anyway:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=solar-cells-prove-cleaner-way-to-produce-power

Here's the bottom line: "Even accounting for all the energy--and pollution--involved in the manufacture of photovoltaic cells, they still produce less pollution over their lifecycle than other alternatives"

I would be interested to learn how the "chicken tax," the 25% tariff that applies to assembled trucks imported to the U.S. enacted in 1963 during a trade war between the US and Europe, fits into the master plan to eliminate the UAW that you refer to.

Was the plan to dupe the Big-3 into retreating into their safe markets of pickup trucks and SUVs, which would of course eventually collapse due to high oil prices? If so, it took awhile (45 years), but what a brilliant plan- the destruction of an industry under the guise of protecting it.

You seemed to have done a lot of research re: federal policy. Rather than just allude to it, how about some links? How about a blog? I'd be interested in looking into this stuff, but what's the point of starting from scratch? Your research is a non-rival good.

Also, I'm still interested in your opinion on the chicken tax...

I'm not a huge union fan; though I am sympathetic to why they exist, they are generally a pain in the butt for me and my clients.

But the UAW has been quite flexible over the past couple of years; they have conceded a lot. They had their eyes open; they saw where the Big 3 was headed (what they, and everyone else, didn't see was the credit freeze). What they or anyone else hasn't been able to do is deal with the legacy (retiree) costs.

Union busting isn't about busting heads and threatening individuals any more. It's about threatening to further bust up a busted economy if the UAW doesn't prostrate itself before you.

I'll give the southern wing of the GOP credit- they do brinkmanship better than anyone. I'm guessing they calculated that GWB would come through with TARP funds, so if their union-busting effort failed, they'd still look like heroes to their paymasters and consituents (who'll take a job with bad benefits over no job), and wouldn't have to actually suffer the Big-3 failing (which, guess what, could take out a fair amount of the supplier base for the southern automakers as well).

For more exuberant South American urban planning, google for the Jaime Lerner TED talk video.

This is not about capitalism vs. socialism.

This is about "free and unfettered" markets vs. regulated markets.

Two things crack me up:

1. The "but this wasn't really a free market; a REAL free market wouldn't have acted like this" defense. As we don't live in a textbook, this defense will always be available.

2. Lecture 3 (+/- 1) in microeconomics explains how external costs cause market inefficiencies/failure; later lectures cover the role of information, and how lack of good information, information asymmetry, etc. leads to market failure. Yet the "free and unfettered" crowd ignores this.

Want free and unfettered? Somalia has a completely unregulated market! Caveat emptor!

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/12/colorados-salazar-to-head-interior.html

You have at least one name that's different from their list...

Al Lewis: Thanks for the perspective. Your comments moved me from very disappointed (and I had given other appointments I wasn't crazy about the benefit of the doubt) to somewhat disappointed or maybe neutral.

DurianJoe: Well said.