The USA has a long history of making friends with despicable regimes. As more despicable than Cuba, I'd put: Myanmar, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Rwanda, and Cambodia. Arguably tied with Cuba would be: Honduras, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Kyrgyzstan, Kenya, and Uganda.

Then, if you travel back in time, you have despicable regimes in Iran, Chile, and Argentina.

Trade is ultimately for more powerful in making positive changes in these societies.

My guess is that you come from the wingnut wing of the American political spectrum, and thus have a "four-legs-good, Cuba-bad" mentality.

Obstinate rage didn't work for 50 years. Maybe trade will bring change -- it sure works that way in the rest of the world.

Gee, what was the last legitimate mainstream science paper you read on the hockey stick? Rich, eh?

Projection isn't a river in Egypt.

Or maybe read some original papers on the issue! Of course, if it doesn't agree with Anthony Watts, then you'll probably consider it propaganda. Bet you never read these.

The thing with crankery, is that cranks never let themselves in on the secret. It is a "self-secret" if you will.

Haha, nah, denialists are the ones running the PR campaign, and Mann receives constant death threats. Do you know what a mimophat is?

The sad truth is that it will not cost the USA economy much (if anything) to make huge strides in reducing CO2 emissions. The technology is already here. Koch and Koch will need a new business model, which is what this is really about.

I believe that Steve McIntyre believes what he says, and thinks he is doing the right thing. Now what is true is that, McIntyre, McKitrick, Lindzen, Spencer, Pat Michaels, all travel in the same circles, receiving money from industry insiders who perfected the tobacco strategy. No-one is going to hire these people now, so they are dependent on the largess of the interests that they serve. Too bad for them.

Oh, I agree that green groups are annoying in their tactics. I decry the uncivilized tone of all of it. Now, if you want to know who started it, then you have to read some history, and I assure you, there is a lifetime worth of references to read there. (Personally, I spot check about one in every 100 references -- and check more regularly if one fails the sniff test. I find this effective.)

Well, it does strike me as true that those who are public in their opposition to climate science have ruined their careers, and are now 100% reliant on think-tank money and funding in order to pay their bills. That's the price for being a crank. Now *you* may not think it is crankery, but cranks never do. So how do you tell what is real?

The hockey stick has been replicated a dozen times using different methods, and the original paper has been scrutinized several times, and found to be sound. But I'm sure you are "neutral" about the science when one Roy Spencer, Tim Ball, or heck, Lord Monckton throw sciency terms around like they are in an episode of Star Trek. Yep, it really is like that, Mr Neutral.

Wow. I mean, truly you know more about the lawsuit than the judge who is settling the legal question. I'm not sure what legal system you believe in, but it evidently is one where people can sue when their theories are mocked!!! My guess is that you used to be a proud "skeptic" but that that little lovefest of "reason" is untenable, and so you've moved to "neutral".

"We all mysterious, especially to ourselves" -- Miss Marple.

Bwhahahahaha, you think satellites are accurate thermometers!!! Next you'll tell me that science shouldn't use models because they are inaccurate and cannot be verified!!! And all the while, you'll have no inkling that you are in a slow motion Dunning-Kruger freak show.

Yeah, it is a total fiction that conservatives are about small government and fiscal responsibility. As far as I can tell, the Harper government is economically clueless, just like George W., his father, and Ronald voodoo-economics Reagan. It's pure branding, and conservatives have owned the war on framing the conversation. But it is also bullpucky. Liberals get their economics from university economic departments. Conservatives get their economics from their donors, and sell it with doublespeak.

Leading economic theories on combating climate change involve revenue neutral carbon taxes. Revenue neutral means that the size of the government doesn't increase. Again, no-one cares about your politics, and motivated reasoning.