Figure out a way to grow these livers in a laboratory. No suffering, no problem. An opportunity for someone to make a lot of money, and offer epicureans what they want.

Reznor's marketing campaign, like his music, is a cut above. He's a genius and a musical giant, and has been since he burst onto the scene. But cynics will always find a way to dismiss him.

Whether calling his view "pitch black," or mocking some part of his art form, most critics and pundits don't get NIN. (BTW, I've never owned a trenchcoat.)

If there's a problem with Reznor's worldview, I'd like to see that addressed in serious discussion. He's merely pointing out things in himself and the world which actually exist. I think we are the wiser for his insights.

If his marketing campaign is elaborate, rather than dismissing it, discuss. How would you do it better? It's like Mozart: which notes would you like to remove?

Fans like myself appreciate his music, for sure. We didn't need the campaign. But I'm also a marketer, and his ideas and understanding of the culture are second to none.

It's not what you put in the fridge, it's the size of the appliance, and how often you open it. Once the interior of the fridge has reached the set point, the compressor shuts off until either thermal leakage or an opened door raises the temperature.

Except for a small amount of energy used to cool the product when it's first placed in the fridge, the incremental impact of storing non-perishables is negligible.

But if you have a bigger fridge than you need overall, then you are definitely wasting energy. A few condiments shouldn't be enough to make you go up to the next size, though.

With your health at stake, it seems wise to err on the side of caution and convenience: Refrigerate anything that might even possibly be perishable.

Just make sure you use green power for your home, or buy a carbon offset.

McKibben gets too carried away on what seems like a moral crusade against consumers and technology. We have only one problem: The price of goods and services do not reflect their true cost, neither in the natural capital used to make them, nor in the costs of their disposal.

If we price in externalities such as pollution, carbon, oil-depletion, and other impacts, we won't have to change anything else about the system. Globalization isn't the problem, it's the cure.

Talk about a "one-time-gift?" How about getting the governments of the world to mandate true pricing for all goods and services!

Your vague "feelings" about man being "too weak to affect nature" are absolutely meaningless in the face of consensus science. You think you have the intellectual stature to claim global warming is bunk by pure authority?? Thousands of mainstream and reputable scientists say you are dead wrong.

No doubt you will grasp at the straws of the few fringe scientists who have sensed an opportunity for advancement in taking a contrarian position. But they are asking us to play Russian Roulette with human civilization--and you are helping them!

Camille, you have just revealed yourself to be a full-fledged science-denier--by definition a subverter of the only kind of human knowledge that matters, and an unwitting (I have to hope) shill for the fossil-fuel industry (including the middle-east oil exporters).

Yes, you have released the proverbial hornet's nest. But the only thing the hornets will sting (fatally) is your own credibility.

Even Newt Gingrich, who apparently actually now takes the science seriously, realizes how grave the situation is, and has switched sides in the debate.

So what's a liberal icon such as yourself doing choosing to promote opinion over facts??

Wrong has truly become right.

Shame on you.

Please, Salon. Do something. Anthropogenic global warming is far past the point of debate. 1,400 pages of the IPCC report back this up. You can't hide behind the fact that you published Paglia as an opinion piece. Your name is on it. It's an utter betrayal of your intellectual honesty and journalistic integrity. You now have a duty to balance these reckless distortions with a factual article.

The dark side of religious cultural relativism and the demeaning of knowledge, that is. That this article was written without a trace of irony is most telling. Especially sentences like "there still isn't consensus on just how the apocalypse will come down or who goes to heaven and when."

Slack used a weak notion of argumentum ad populum, by suggesting that it's relevant that an approximately equal number of Americans believe in 'creationism' as accept evolution. All that statistic proves is how bad our science education has really gotten.

Why not try actually reporting on the know-nothings if you're going to talk about them? Like: ask them some non-softball questions and take down their ridiculous charade of false certitudes and credulity.

"Darwin has nothing on the Book of Genesis." Reason obviously has nothing on Mr. Slack's fantasy life. What a sick joke.