Love is just a four letter word.

Lets be blunt about this, while love is pleasant, it solves sweet bugger all.

Love didn't stop the Vietnam war. Lack of funding and a certain fear of getting drafted did.

Love didn't stop racism. Economic reality and people of other races no longer being willing to take it did.

The last time love actually achieved anything was the Taj Mahal, and even then it wasn't exactly a major, real boon to the Indian workers who built it.

Even Apartheid wasn't conquored by love, it was conquored by economic sanctions based on people with a view to fairness.

Straight talking honesty solves problems. Logic solves problems. Emotions, fear or love, generally cause problems.

That, is actually quite a wonderful image.

Eventually, we will have technology which is so efficient, so clean, and so good that we will be able to launch the surplus population into new colonies, probably causing all sorts of new problems, which the steady advance of technology will have to sort out.

And hey, maybe one day we will hit a workable solution. Who knows?

This faith in science is often accompanied by the antiquated view that there are facts separate from values and interpretations.

The authors are so stupid, that they don't know the difference between fact and opinion. Anything more they have to say is thus safe to disregard because, frankly, they are total frigging morons.

The end.

which both get what the article is about, and sort of aren't totally disgusted with it.

Lo and behold, all three editors choice picks, happen to be those posts.

Come on Salon.

Actually, you don't understand what the except is about.

The crux of what they are saying is that mankind is behind global warming, it is a disaster, but we shouldn't act like we are worried about it or like there are real problems that need solving, we should rather celebrate the problems we have solved.

They aren't actually attacking global warming science.

What they are doing is peddling a theme which isn't even internally consistent.

For example:

While they claim that there is a religious quality to environmentalism, they oppose the average environmentalists reliance on established facts to form their opinions. Instead, they want environmentalists to rely on an overarching vision.

While I don't support Hillary and think she has about as much of a chance of being president as your rock does, this article is basically dredging up old dirt that didn't stick last time.

It didn't hurt Bill when he was president, it isn't going to hurt him when he is first lady.

She was a primary voice arguing in favour of the war in Iraq.

If she has admitted her error on Iraq, she hasn't learned from it regarding her vote on giving Bush the authority to basically start another war in Iran.

She is also in favour of censorship, trying to ride the canned outrage the religious right tried to whip up over computer games (The same canned outrage they tried to whip up about a board game, every new genre of music since rythmic grunting, TV, movies, and plays.)

She isn't a neocon though, to be a neocon she would actually have to believe in the self-justifying rhetoric of America having both a right and a duty to rule the world, what she is is a high powered sheep. She doesn't lead, she goes with the herd, and that more then any single policy would put me off of her.

Go read your consitution. Find out who ratifies treaties.

There you will find your answer to your question.

Oh, and the story needs to be updated. Gore and the IPCC won.