I don't recall saying the views of the "extreme' are "based on ignorance". Nor would I make that assumption unless shown otherwise. Valid points don't become invalid just because they're served on a bed of ignorance, and shouldn't be discarded simply because we dislike the messenger. There are certain 'truths' to be found in both 'extreme positions', if we don't allow ourselves to become intellectually lazy. Honest, critical thinking requires we collect as much information as possible before reaching any conclusions. Not simply look for 'facts' that fit easily into the preconcieved assumptions we've already made. The global warming "theory' has conveniently morphed into "fact' , just from the sheer regurgitation of the story by the media. I'm sure someone will pull that last sentence out of this post and make an issue out of it. So be it. I'm not looking for a cutsie red star from the editor, or validation from the online 'community'. Presenting 'science theory' as 'science fact' is just plain junk science and dishonest. I would suggest both sides of this debate have engaged in this practice. The complexities of 'global warming' would leave me to conclude at this time, that there are still 'grey areas' still to be resolved. And until they are, all the 'truths' of the issue still elude us..

The majority of these posts represent precisely what's wrong with the global warming issue. You've got the right wingers yelling that the argument is not scientifically valid and the liberals convinced that the sky is falling. Somewhere between the two extremes probably exists a reasonable approach to the problem. But you're not going to find it when political ideologies, biased media reporting, and corporate agendas are driving the debate. The real "catastrophe" here is the polarized, almost religous fervor the Dem's and Republicans bring to the discussion, and the pathetic manipulation of the general population .

My my, such vitriol and baseless assumptions on your part. But you're right; I should have referenced 'The WWF For Dummies' handbook .

In the long run I think it would be cheaper to "drill" off the coast of Florida; she looks like high maintenance to me.

I don't know what's worse, the moronic remark, or the fact that we have media watchdog groups monitoring what folks are saying.

"WE can't possibly punp enough oil to slake China's thirst if it continues to grow at it's present rate"---- Well, unless we elected a 'one world government' last night, I don't see why "WE" should worry if China can meet their energy needs at all. What "we" should be doing is simply resuming oil drilling and exploration wherever we can, so that America can continue to grow. That includes off the coast of Florida, you know, right next to that non OSHA approved Chinese oil rig. Also, the implementation of a serious national energy plan that includes nuclear, coal, solar, geothermal, and wind, would have a more stabilizing effect on the oil markets, than conserving and drivng tiny cars ever will. Most speculators betting on a commodity with high demand, and no competition are rarely going to bet on a downward trend. It's time for a little competition.

After all, no sense it cutting your profit margins, Grab that geriatric market share!!

"If would be immigrants are being illegitimately excluded, one cannot complain that they are violating due process if they come anyway"? Who's decided they're being "illegitimately excluded"? Is that another 'court of public opinion' ruling I missed? And no, they're not "violating due process", they're given due process after violating the law..

What's the big deal? I would think Obama would have no problem introducing a bill in the Senate, mandating Hillary's debt be paid off by all of us. After all, 'redistribution of wealth' is the hallmark of both their campaigns. Unfortunately, they seem to have a small problem when it comes to redistributing THEIR personal wealth.

The markets and the speculators are driven by perception and emotion. If the perception is that we're going to pursue every avenue of energy production, including offshore drilling, then it will impact the price at the pump. This "sit on your hands and do nothing' approach, Obama seems to have, is not going to send any message to the markets at all. Other than 'business as usual'. Silly talk of a 'windfall profits tax' is just another pathetic election year gimmick, pandering to the uneducated. Does anyone think Exxon-Mobile is not going to pass along that tax directly to the consumer? McCain's plan is far from perfect, and still doesn't go far enough, but it's still better than a 'lets conserve and hope for best' plan. This economy runs on energy. It's not an addiction, it's a necessity. Therfore not having enough, constitutes the definition of a national emergency. It's time both parties pulled their heads out of the sand, face reality, and develop a viable policy.

Try that slogan...........a far more accurate representation of Obama's campaign.

Why? It must be a really slow news day if this qualifies as newsworthy. What's next, Obama declares, " "The sun will rise every day when I am president"..?

Once again another myopic view of a complex issue. No one is offering up offshore drilling as the only answer to our energy problems. And only a moron would believe prices will suddenly drop But it is ONE small part of the solution. As is nuclear power; coal to oil technology; shale oil, solar, geothermal and wind power....Hey Leonard, besides depending upon China, do you have any other bright ideas? Or are you just content to whine about what we can't do?