One might find this hard to believe but it's quite possible to be environmentally aware and active while not believing in all the hype about CO2...really. For instance I believe in the science of genetics, but I don't believe in the need for a program of state sponsored eugenics. Bad genes in our society are not a real problem, just like the flimsy correlation of CO2 with global warming is not, I think, a genuine reason for alarm. Of course there's more CO2 when it gets warmer because there are more plants producing and consuming it, and the oceans can hold less CO2 as their surface waters warm even a tiny bit and so they expell it. The greenhouse analogy is only an analogy. The atosphere is NOT a pane of glass and so the use of the word "greenhouse" is not something to interpret as a literal example.

I don't have to believe in the CO2 connection to global warming to realize full well that what's harming the polar bears is not the absence of ice, but the presence of organic pollutants and heavy metals which we emit from our coal fired generators, settling in the northern reaches and bioaccumulating in many animals reproductive organs...something that's apparently causing one in five polar bears in Greenland to be sterile.

I don't need to believe in the CO2 connection to think that getting off the oil habit is a great idea as I, just as anyone can see that our dependence has made us weak and vulnerable as a society and that oil drilling can threaten environments even if it produced no CO2.

One group that does need for us to believe in the CO2 connection is that group of financiers who will be managing the cap and trade proposals and those who profit from emerging as middle men in the great scheme.

I suggest we hold off on the cap and tax and instead focus on cleaning up our act and working to protect and re-connect habitat for wild stocks on land and on the oceans, and using the kind of international politcal muscle we seem to be all ready to expend on the fallacious notion that we can controll a system as complex as earth's climate by regulating a gas which is of such minor importance in the scheme of things.

Think about it next time you dive into a plate of farm raised shrimp and ignore the 9 billion mouths we'll be feeding by the middle of the century, and ask if having a gas that acts as a robust plant enhancing nutrient, on a planet that was nearing historic warm temps, is worse than what some others who stand to profit enormously would say we should keep the planet's climate cool and its productive potential stunted.

I hope Obama, famous for bringing consensus to a wide range of issues, does the same for our environment and places the alarm over CO2 into perspective, and backs a program on an international scale that uses tax and cap for some program where it will result in a cleaner and more intact ecosystem for everyone, and puts CO2 alarm on the shelf along with the archaic notion of trying to preserve society by outlawing miscengenation as was all the rage last century as our infantile knowledge of genetics has led us to think would be a worthy strategy back then. Thank goodness we dodged that self inflicted bullet and lets hope we do the same for CO2 alarmism.

Does that mean that if Minnesota didn't go through the efforts as rigorously as they are in this case, they'd be cleaner? It's human nature to cheat, just as it's human nature to get dirty in every endeavor, and so Minnesota's penchant for very thorough cleansing is further evidence that it is still very much an active part of the "good governance" movement. Be very wary of any organization that says it's clean because it doesn't need to clean vigorouosly and thoroughly.

I don't claim to be an expert of sociology or Gladwell's writing, but it does seem like he's making a bit much out of patterns that may or may not mean what he's making a swell living by interpreting, but this is the meat and potatos of all the soft-science psychology/sociology fields and while it's interesting to speculate, one shouldn't confuse the fact that just because they're called the "social sciences" that they have much to do with objectivity as do the hard sciences which actually require facts to be verifiable.

It seems as if it's built into our instincts genetically. Younger women want older men because they offer greater likelihood of reproductive success and social status...while older men like younger women for the same reason. Naturally it's the younger men, frequently rejected by their female cohorts seeking status and success, who are inexorably drawn to the more experienced women who can offer mystery, carnal knowledge, pleasure and some status. So, one would think that a mature single woman would do well to seek them out and assume the role of esteemed docent.

I think it's also interesting to note that in the highlands of New Guinee where human society seems to have remained the unchainded for the last 40 thousand years, the women have husbands who live apart from them in communal huts with other men, but they themselves live with their prized pigs, who they say are better partners.