Some are evidently cracked and that sulphurous smell is escaping. Some are the products of a pullet and some have been sucked by Grandma, as in "Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs". Do you know what? I'm beginning to feel sorry for Barack Obama who has to please this odd congeries, especially as Camille all but called him a stumblebum. No wonder he's been looking scared of late and seems to have lost the zing that had you all rolling in the aisles. I'd be scared too if I had to preside over this madness, although being a Lord of Misrule was said to be fun. All the best anyway with the devout hope that Oprah will be able to fit into her dress next Tuesday night and that the pheasant on the menu has been "hung" for just the right period of time and isn't over-ripe. Yuck. I, sure as shooting, hope Sarah Palin had nothing to do with the birds' demises(s).

Soon we will have a new "the one", which sounds a bit better than "the Decider", I guess.

Crack some eggs, and make an omlette in our honor!

I don't watch much TV news, but I'll have to start catching more of Katie's interviews. As you observe, it was no great accomplishment to show up Sarah Palin as a fool; all she had to do was ask simple, reasonable questions and then sit back as the word-salad flew. But judging from Camille's hostility, Couric can also take on, and take out, professional, full time, major league bullsh!tters. Couric must really have done a job on Paglia, wish I'd seen it.

1) The current consensus is rapidly melting, way more rapidly and permanently than any ice caps.

2) Consensus is useful determining what a group THINKS is right but not what is true.

3) The researchers, as noted in a long-ago post on this topic, have been under pressure from people who threaten their grants, etc. If you think they aren't swayed by the prospect of losing grant money, I think you are underestimating.

4) The researchers who have spoken out as contrarians to the "consensus" have been hassled most thoroughly by the left-wing Church of Global Warming Inquisitors.

But probably not.

Consensus is NOT a reliable guide to determining scientific truth. It is one reason I am not in favor of cookbook medicine based on consensus guidelines for making medical decisions.

The consensus is based on predictions that work.

Once you start making predictions that work, people might start to form a consensus that you are right. Until then, you're just bringing up irrelevancies, and employing every logical fallacy in the book.

Speaking with Dr. Normal Kaplan, one of the more distinguished members of the JNCC, regarding treatment for high blood pressure, he told me that he didn't treat patients according to the guidelines (I think Number 6 had just been released) because they were ALREADY OBSOLETE.

So what? Your argument that sometimes the consensus is wrong is completely tiresome, and proves absolutely nothing. Hell, it doesn't even suggest anything, much less prove it.

There are also lots of consensuses that have not been wrong. It doesn't prove that every consensus is correct, either. It's simply irrelevant, and such irrelevant arguments are typical from global warming deniers.

The way to argue with science is with your own science that better explains and predicts the data. You haven't done that, you're just unoriginally running your mouth about Galileo.

I would think that, rather than count noses and voting with the majority, you would prefer to look for truth. But that's just me. I'd like to think that, were I a physician in the time of Semmelweiss or Lister, I would have had the courage to note the consensus and ignore it in favor of actual new data.

Since you seem to be getting philosophical, I'll explain why your statement is complete nonsense.

If the science is correct, the cost of doing nothing could be global catastrophe and millions or even billions dead.

If the science is incorrect, the cost of doing nothing is a continuance of burning a precious, non-renewable resource, and inflating evil regimes like Saudi Arabia with tons of money.

Either way, if we do nothing, we lose. In the worst case, billions die, and in the best case, Saudi Arabia gets richer, and the air gets dirtier and harder to breathe.

The revenge of the pheasant may not be too far off, all the same. They have eggs too, you know, and they turn into eggheads. The male (I can't give it the name it's given in Europe because the American sense of delicacy is so well understood) is a splendid bird, just like the peacock, but the hens, poor things, are very dowdy. They just lay eggs which, inevitably, turn into eggheads. As for preening....You'd be gobsmacked by their "hauteur". I've never eaten pheasant as I've been told about the condition it's in when ready for the oven; a "gamey" smell is the euphemism.

I shouldn't be here at all, as I'm a peasant but not a pheasant. The last time I looked, they were arguing about ice-caps when all the world wants to know is whether Oprah will be showing her knee-caps in that dress. Will Michelle Obama give Carla Bruni a good run for her money and will we all be tearing down to shops demanding an exact copy of their style, even if there's only a loaf of mouldy bread left in the larder (what else?). Don't mention Rachida Doti, anyway, as she's the beaudacious French minister in Sarkozy's Cabinet who has so many "feminist" hurling plates at her. I think Camille hasn't cottoned on to the existence of this Moroccan-French woman yet because, if she had, she'd be able to go on and on about the superbness of Mediterranean pulchritude, not in any way a tribute to herself, you understand. I've seen pictures of Ms. Doti and I have to admit, albeit reluctantly, that she really is what was once called "easy on the eye". Now I know very well that "lookism" is frowned on in America so I'll go while the going is good.