[neverdem]

This analysis would be excellent if Brooks did not reveal himself as being hypnotized by the global warming due to greenhouse gases hypothesis.

[neverdem]

PING

[Cicero]

Unfortunate. Global warming is a HUGE boondoggle. Not only because it would cost our country trillions if we signed onto it, but because it would divert resources from what actually should be done. Cleaning up the environment, if sensibly done, is an important goal. No question that our highways and cities are far healthier and pleasanter places than they used to be.

[prion]

Exactly what I was thinking. This would be a good, honest analysis if he hadn't fallen for the giant, imaginary hypothesis in the middle.

[vbmoneyspender]

There is ample evidence that we have a long-term global warming problem . . .

It would be nice if Brooks shared some of that evidence with us. It would also be nice if Brooks applied his scientific expertise to the problem and explained to us what will need to be done if global warming (assuming it is actually occurring) is the result of long term changes in the Sun. If that is the case, does Brooks suggest we embark on an immediate program to finetune the amount of energy being put out by the Sun?

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[Southack]

"Nonetheless, for two years Jim Jeffords and a Democratic-led coalition have blocked the Bush initiative. Many Democrats have in the past backed cap-and-trade reforms, but they don't want to allow Bush a victory. This has had several bad effects. The administration has tried to enact the reforms by administrative fiat, which means litigation and delay. More important, it means that there is no discussion or compromise on some remaining points of dispute."

Since when does the NY Times permit overt criticism of Democrats in its articles??