I did some sweet grass and ethanol, before dawn, while looking for tigers at Bandipur recently. Were you looking for switchgrass? If policy decisions were made based on the science of planetary warming CARB/Greens ought to mandate catalytic converters for cattle.

Wow, this post is a little bit too pedantic for my taste. At the very least, for a non-open and shut issue – please read up (and acknowledge) the other side of the green debate. That’s no excuse for knowing squat about your environment, but drawing a 4 point, seemingly linear decision tree is in itself much too ignorant. As you consider the positives of going green, would you please also consider the costs?

It’s funny that you ask for nuance but reduce this to “sides” Most of the arguments I have ever heard in the political mainstream against global warming and renewable energy have been uncompelling at best and more likely just disingenuous. If you can point to specialist literature or mainstream arguments that acknowledge that global warming is occurring, and then seek to explain it, outline a path towards eliminating it without causing other serious externalities or reasons why it’s not problematic, I’d be happy to read it.

But until then, the debate for me is really what types of solutions are found to global warming, not whether – like every other country in the world has realized. So, consumption tax? Redesign cities? Let more migrants move out of countries that will likely be more affected (e.g. Bangladesh) to countries that will be less negatively affected? For example, I’ve heard ethanol subsidies for Iowa described as a “minor war crime” and I agree.

Wow, this post is a little bit too pedantic for my taste. At the very least, for a non-open and shut issue – please read up (and acknowledge) the other side of the green debate. That’s no excuse for knowing squat about your environment, but drawing a 4 point, seemingly linear decision tree is in itself much too ignorant. As you consider the positives of going green, would you please also consider the costs?

as in everything, there is a difference between being able to read the electricity bill and being able to design a city grid.

For every kid that knew at least three sources of non fossil-fuel energy, how many know who Ronald Bailey is (and the associated change in how GW skeptics think), Patrick Michael, ?

Wow, this post is a little bit too pedantic for my taste. At the very least, for a non-open and shut issue – please read up (and acknowledge) the other side of the green debate. That’s no excuse for knowing squat about your environment, but drawing a 4 point, seemingly linear decision tree is in itself much too ignorant. As you consider the positives of going green, would you please also consider the costs?

as in everything, there is a difference between being able to read the electricity bill and being able to design a city grid.

For every kid that knew at least three sources of non fossil-fuel energy, how many know who Ronald Bailey is (and the associated change in how GW skeptics think) or who Patrick Michael is? I like playing “gotcha” as much as the next nerd, but at least I have the grace to acknowledge that the knowledge deficit on this subject (especially the details!) crosses party, ethnic and religious lines and that the truly substantive debate on the topic (including the cost/benefits of the various suggested ways of dealing with GW) takes place almost completely outside of the public sphere (yes, i’m not including the Goracle because he was less interested in science and more in stroking his ego and general panic over GW)

fools come in all colors.

Also Taz, about your statement that drilling for more oil is wrong? There were about 20,000 rabid republicans chanting “Drill Now” in Minnesota a few weeks ago who would beg to differ.

Do we have to keep reading the same post by Taz on here again and again? At least tell me she’ll disappear again after the election. She really flies in the face of the whole non partisan thing you guys shoot for.