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.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. (John 3:16)

That's "...only begotten son..." If you're gonna rely on that stuff, at least get it right.

Jesus!

Yep, damn those greedy and lying egg-heads getting rich off of grant money. When I think of the yachts they're buying with that sweet moollah it makes my blood boil.

I guess if a scientist were to agree with energy companies there's no way they'd get any grant money from those same companies, why, they'd just leave them out in the...cold?

I agree with everything in this article - other than continuing to use the right wing's terminology to express the arguments. Conservative? Hah! What would be more conservative than leaving our oil underground for a rainy day?

Imagine implementing the most extreme left wing policy imaginable. All right? Now imagine implementing the most extreme right wing policy imaginable. (Perhaps like me you are thinking this lies somewhere to the left of where we already are.) Now. Imagine that each of these policies is proven wrong - wrong - wrong!

What is the result in each case? Implementing a bad left wing policy simply leaves us with more resources underground - less carbon in the atmosphere - and the ability for our children to extract and burn, slash and exploit, to their hearts content.

On the other hand, implementing a bad right wing policy leaves our world a burned out cinder, denuded of resources. Our children's options are constrained; our grandchildren's futures bleak beyond comprehension.

So what is the truly conservative position? The one that amounts to a zero margin bet that the right wing is so patently right they can't possibly be wrong? Or the left wing policies that in all circumstances preserves the option of reversing course?

As the GOP have demonstrated, every argument - every single argument - should first seize the high ground of the terminology. Either later commentators will pick up on the nuances of language - or they will enlarge the words' impact by discussing the terminology itself.

There is not one damn thing conservative about the Republican party. Not only are they acting counter to the public's best interest, they are acting counter to their own families' best interest.

Isn't religion just a theory? Belief must be based on faith, as there is no hard evidence to support the existence of a god.

Folks, on both sides, read what the author is actually writing, not what he claims to be writing. This is not a review of the science behind global warming. Romm is making a poorly defended case for a particular means of combating global warming.

Here's his buried thesis:

Krauthammer and the conservatives have it backward. The solution to global warming doesn't require rationing energy or anything else. It requires a government-industry partnership to accelerate existing and near-term clean energy technologies into the market.

Romm states that technology will save us, but offers no underlying support for his argument. He just beats up on some deniers. Nor does he discuss the environmental (or social) costs of these supposedly "clean" technologies.

The technology vs rationing dichotomy that Romm sets up is false. Creating incentives that reward conservation will accelerate new technologies--or simply less use--into the marketplace. Simply offering technologies (and at yuppie prices) will not prove attractive quickly enough to prevent global warming catastrophe. Romm assumes a natural relationshiop between oil supply, global warming, and market prices. There is nonesuch. He is as dangerous a romantic as the conservatives he mocks.

Let's see. Billions of humans burning fossil fuels, burning trash, burning forests, pouring chemicals into the oceans, lacing the earth with toxic fertilizers, overfishing the oceans, polluting sources of fresh water, building upon and paving over good land and whatever else we do to our world in the quest for riches.

Will all of this have an effect on the Earth? Will it pollute the air?

Can we, at least, agree on one thing? Can we agree that to continue this activity will have terrible consequences that may not be undone?

Because, if we can't agree to save this planet we are handing our children an uncertain future.

Or just well wishing bullshit. Buried on page two is a statement that we have to reduce carbon emissions by 80% (of today's levels) by 2050 OR the next FIFTY generations are doomed.

Is that a typo or is Romm prognosticating he knows with certainty what will be in the year 3000?

I have a prediction too. Sometime after the year 2893 a meteor will hit us and wipe out all life on earth unless we take steps now. Right now.

I'm also pretty sure that if you took Eric the Red and brought him forward in time to today he would fail to predict 100% of everything that's around him.

I love ya man! You made me laugh out loud. Jesus!

As stupid and self-destructive as these idiot republicans are being, they didn't put themselves in office. Most of these guys were elected due in large part becuase they oppose conservation. As Blair Simpkins proved, they don't even have a basic understanding of physics. If you put toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, they have to go somewhere. Matter can niether be created or destroyed. These voters need to go back to the fifth grade and learn science (but of course they oppose science becuase it doesn't tell them what they want to hear). They take everything Rush and company say at face value no matter how much it defys basic logic. The stupid religious acceptance doesn't help either. These are people who think our foriegn policy should be based on the book of revalation. If ever there was a group of people who wanted the world to end, social conservatives would be it.

Sadly I don't see a positive future here. These people will continue to be in denial until their own stupidity kills them. And even then they will blame "liberals".

And Blair, there's more evidence supporting both evolution and global warming then there is to support hte existance of Jesus. When your ready to actually think for yourself, you'll realize that.