It is TRUE --- SALON now lets any 'JERKOFF JOEY' to type their 'STOOPIDISMS' in print. A 'JOEY' used to be a 'CIRCUS TERM' for a 'BOOB - A FUNNYMAN CLOWN'. NOW IT IS JUST ANOTHER NAME FOR AN ENVIRO-WHACKADOO!!! 'JERKOFF JOEY' go into your room in the basement and mentally masturbate even more than you do about how hot it is cuz it is summer!!!! [TO THE EDITORS OF SALON --- More cogent articles without the idiotic drivel from individuals of no repute or sentient thought would garner more readership to SALON instead of allowing HOMELESS JERKOFF's to contribute to the supposed heated/ or 'spiciness' of discussion!!!]

Lots of "we must..." proclamations in this piece.

Fear mongering at its finest.

I agree with John Mosely, but I'd like to add another analogy. Our economic system is heavily regulated and structured, and, despite grumbles, conservatives agree with that regulation more than not. In fact, they ARE the regulators. Similarly, conservative economic theory stands behind our current theory of a rationed money supply that uses a frankly dictatorial system to determine our access to credit. I'm not against that system, btw, I'm just pointing out that conservatives are not being fully honest about their attitudes about regulation and rationing.

It's not a big vs small government thing at all. Their concern is that rationing may create profits for, and concede economic control to, people other than themselves. Romm obliviously proves them right by demanding tax money for his own constituencies, and by pooh-poohing the economic consequences of the actions he advocates. There is political opportunity as the power of conservatism wanes, but only if well-intended actors like Romm broaden their toolbox beyond simplistic technological fixes. Plugging the whole country into an outlet won't solve global warming.

On Sunday, June 19, 2008, Mr. Blair Simpkins proved conclusively that humans and primates have a shared genetic history. Simpkins, in response to Romm's article about the climate crisis that has undeniebly begun in earnest wrote in part:

"It's all just theory.

Why should I listen to some elitist scientist who makes his living on grants tell me my puny car is going to cause the polar caps to melt when he’s the same one who tells me I came from a monkey? They don’t call it the “theory” of climate change for nothing – it has holes. Just like the “theory” of evolution."

So I wonder - Simpkins . . . do you go to the doctor? Do you take medication when ill? If yes, why would you do that - get thee to a faith healer!

Rochelle Gordon

. . . and the drive to pile up treasure, at all costs, pile up treasure, for a monument to our names, to spell out our "specialness" in towers large enough to be seen far out to sea. The kind of social and world view that would produce the insight and character in leaders to avoid the fate that is staring us all in the face has no currency. We reward the treasure maker -- not the individual with foresight, who plans for generations to come -- the manufacturer, the wheelerdealer, not the farmer. Of course, the speculative spirit, the slashing/burning necessary to prepare land for farming also indicates a war-on-nature attitude. We've made our choice, the piper's bill has now come due.

Conservatives are not the ones who have invested in clean energy; liberals are. Generally, conservatives have invested in fossil fuels and fossil fuels have invested in them. So should we be surprised at the current impasse?

(Note: I really mean that "generally". If you look at Democrats from coal and oil states you see the same thing.)

In the end, profits will determine our fate. That is why we need to make clean energy and cheap energy synonymous.

"To avert disaster, we need to cut carbon emissions in the transportation sector some 60-80 percent by 2050."

This kind of "claim-as-fact" is pure B.S.

Who is fear mongering now? We have heard this kind of crap so many times from the ozone hole to acid rain to Radon gas... There is always someone making a fortune off claims like this, not least of whom is Al Gore.

Mr. Romm has unfortunatey written a very misleading article by assuming that global warming is clearly the result of human interaction.

First, it is easy to dispute that there is a scientifc community consensus about the cause of global warming. I, along with well-known and respected scientists, take issue with the representations of those who argue homeogenetic global warming causation., which has not proven by indisputable facts, and fear that accepting this arguement founded on incorrect assumptions will lead us to correcting the wrong causation. For example, Dr Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT shoots some pretty big holes in the scientifc basis of man-made global warming. A quick search on the iinternet will provide additional respectd scientific disbelievers of the man-made scenario. Consequences of applying rectifying remedies can have disastrous tertiary impacts; witness the push to ethanol which has not only impacted prices of corn and related products, but also seems to be reducing availablity of this basic food staple to the world's poor. I do not remember reading of this potential impact of increasing ethanol production and, in the case of global warming discussions, have yet to see a truly objective analysis of how the various schemes to reduce carbon emissions will have tertiary impacts on mankind. (All the articles I have seen supporting homeogentic global warming are written from a political rather than a scientific viewpoint.)

Second, having the government select and finance energy alternatives is downright scary, given their track record. I have experience dealing with the Department of Energy, and cannot think of one major thing they have accomplishment over the past 30 years even though I believe they have spent more that $100 billion since their inception. Anyone who suggests that government can "help" conveniently overlooks their track record.

I agree that development of affordable, clean energy and reduction of pollutants needs to be prioritized. The question is how to 1. surface all the scientifc facts, 2.evaluate all the consequences and 3 determine how to implement the most effective alternatives.