So now you want to gut the economy on the basis of a science that you admit isn't "exact"? The climate has changed before you know. Homo sapiens are still here and thriving.

Lots of sciences aren't to an exact precision, and you are being disingenuous with your assertion that because something cannot be mapped or explained exactly through a scientific methodology that the methodologies and equations are somehow flawed beyond salvation. I suppose meteorology itself is absolute rubbish because it's not 100% accurate, eh? Shit, I guess we should just stop trying, and ignore that it is by and far more than accurate enough at this time. It will get better, just as our understanding and mathematical models and equations of forecasting climate change itself will. The models are not completely wrong, but they can at times be less than 100% accurate. This does not mean that the predictions said models make are inherently useless. You are basically saying they are, which is hogwash. I'm all for perfecting our equations and such, but I am not all for waiting until we are absolutely certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that what we see happening is actually happening before taking action. We have far more to lose from inaction than we do from action.

BTW, carbon taxes have nothing to do with reducing carbon. There's a number of ways we could do that without imposing new taxes.

Taxes are a great way of leveling the playing field to create greater incentive to get off of horrible habits. The horrible habit in question here is extremely unclean and non-renewable energy.

Carbon taxes represent another attempt at expanding the power and reach of government.

Cut the paranoid bullshit that ignores the fact that motivations must be created in this market. Jobs will migrate, profits will migrate, and we will all be better off when we are off of technology that destroys our planet in both the short and long term. Expanding the power and reach of government, that's the catch-all of this I don't like what the government is doing so clearly it is out of their bounds and nothing but a power grab mentality. I've got news for you -- Sometimes the government needs to act on things. Energy policy is completely within the realm of things that government can and should dictate.

You want my support for a carbon tax? Offset it with equal reductions in the income tax. Somehow I doubt you'd be willing to go along with that though....

I don't really want to get into a(n) (even more) futile discussion regarding who should and shouldn't bear tax burdens, but Earth to Shakrai, income taxes for people making on average less than $250,000 a year have dropped. You'll forgive me if I don't shed a tear for people with very large amounts of expendable income and wealth paying their fair share for piggybacking on the people who do the work and who have to suffer the consequences far more than a wealthy businessman. People keep saying it's in the best interests of the rich to not consolidate power and screw over the little man as if this supposition is at all supported by history. Now, the fact that it hasn't ever worked out that way doesn't mean that it could potentially, just like how there's never really been a truly Communist society that succeeded on it's own but hey it could work it just hasn't been done right! In theory the supposition is right, in practice people look out for themselves, and powerful businessmen often get to that point by being rather... hmm, psychopathic.

If you would argue that we need to give income tax credits to the wealthy in this country to offset them having to pay for Carbon Taxes, then what fucking motivation is being created here? Are you serious? Take from one hand and just transfer it to the other of the same person. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, let's nullify the Carbon Taxes by dropping income tax rates on the same people affected.

You see what you did there -- you implied that I only support the status quo when I've said nothing of the kind. Does it make it easier to write someone off when you can put words in their mouth and paint a negative picture of them in your mind?

Yes, it is, now go away. There's no reasoning with you when you can't even understand that climate research does not have to be an exact science to still be accurate in its overall predictions. These guys aren't trying to figure out if it will be raining next month, dolt. They are assessing general trends and patterns. As for nuclear energy, I do not object to looking into using it as an energy source if we were to use any of the more recent and advanced designs. Indeed, that is one of the points of the carbon tax system, to move away from forms of energy that would impose such a burden.

Again, in the words of Charlie Booker, go away.

Quick post-edit because it's late and I spaced it:

Even speaking more broadly though and not about Carbon Taxes, your supposition is ridiculous and not worth serious consideration

should read

Even speaking more narrowly though regarding Carbon Taxes/CO2, your supposition is ridiculous and not worth serious consideration

So what? It's still not going to kill us. It still doesn't have the impact on life as your "polluted air and water" straw man. From where I sit it seems pretty damned arrogant to proclaim that we need to destroy livelihoods and whole economies on the basis of climate models that can't even predict today using all of the historical data that we have.

Only by completely refuting all known science behind climate change research could someone say with as much certainty as you that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere will do human civilization no harm. There is plenty of evidence that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, you would just seemingly rather believe it's all an elaborate hoax to destroy the economy and businesses, as if that's in the best interest of the global scientific community and the world as a whole.

And it isn't a straw-man, I was responding to your idiotic assertions that the left should embrace corporatism in the name of securing paychecks for the workers. If you meant in this particular situation only you didn't specify that, so maybe you should speak clearer next time? wizardforce also did not specify, and I am well-aware that Carbon Taxes are the beginning of the thread but the discussion took the turns that it did. Even speaking more broadly though and not about Carbon Taxes, your supposition is ridiculous and not worth serious consideration.

Go ahead and advocate for your carbon tax. You won't get it in the United States. Not even with 60 Democratic Senators could you find the support to get it through the US Congress. The EPA's threat to regulate it is an empty one -- the American people through Congress can cut off it's funding whenever they want. Nor would it matter even if you managed to get the US to commit economic suicide. China and India are not going to halt their efforts to pull their citizens out of poverty because of Al Gore.

I want your crystal ball. I am merely advocating something I am not making the assumption as you are that the end-result is already determined. Speculate all you want on how things will play out, I don't care one whit. As for the China and India remark, one can only hope that in time they can be persuaded to understand the severity of the situation. In the meantime, that doesn't excuse us doing nothing about the problem. Being greener does not have to equate to increased poverty and less of a role in global economics, but for some reason you seem to think that the two are absolutely inseparable. Science is continuously developing more efficient strategies for alternative energy and if we could get some more funding going on for things then progress would be even greater. The status quo should not and cannot be maintained.

Lastly, why do climate change deniers always act like Al Gore is the only person or even the biggest/most visible person in the climate change debate? I and most others are curious about your obsession with the guy over the silly claim that he allegedly said he invented the internet (he didn't) or his contributions to the climate change debate (he is a minor player and is not a climate change scientist nor does he pretend to be). We are interested in debating facts, not persons. You guys win over the misinformed far easier by attacking persons though instead of using reason.

Yeah, it's not like CO2 is a greenhouse gas or anything. Oh wait, it is. Damn.

Right on dude, wizardforce was totally expressing that sentiment!

Pike off with your red herring straw-man argument.

Yeah, because the working man really needs to have polluted water and air that causes a wide array of problems. Yup, that's why leftists should embrace letting companies do whatever they want to the environment, so the workers can take a check home even if they're slowly destroying the habitat we all have to share.

You are a short-sighted fool, just so you know.

Internet Tough-Guy Mode: Engage!

Pick your offense. A drawing of Mohammed, a crucifix in urine, a burning flag, interracial or same-sex couples kissing in public. Every group has something it considers sacrilegious.

Only one group reacts with mass protests in the streets burning effigies as well as placing targets on peoples heads because of them exercising their freedom of speech. When was the last time you heard of a cartoonist getting stabbed to death in the streets for drawing Buddha, Jesus, or Moses? When was the last time someone who simply translated a book about Buddha, Jesus, or Moses met a similar fate? If there are moderate Muslims who want to live in modern times with us they need to take back control of their religion from the extremists that dominate the news and try to dominate our lives.

It takes an astounding lack of logic to draw the connections that you just did. And even if people of other faiths did react in such a way to such things, they are in the wrong too and are not to be tolerated. This whole "please guys stop being so mean!" act is getting really old really fast. I haven't and will not participate in this event because I personally have my mind elsewhere, but nobody anywhere has any right to tell me in the USA (and other countries with sane protections to free speech) to shut up and not talk about or draw something or someone because they are offended by it. As long as I'm not saying "Go kill such-and-such or so-and-so" then the most harm I'm doing is making someone think twice about a part of their life. Your delicate sensibilities regarding religious beliefs do not mean more legally than my ability to exercise my freedom of speech. You want to call me an asshole for exercising said freedom in a certain way? That's fine, and I really don't care. Censoring or threatening with death or violence is not fine though. That is when logical beings do care.

Everyone mentioning SRWare Iron should know about this little tidbit: The story of Iron. The article and the linked IRC log tell a very interesting story about a guy less concerned with having a good reason to fork and more concerned with making money off of adsense and publicity for creating a "privacy-respecting" Chrome which is basically a perpetually outdated Chromium with a few checkboxes in "Under the Hood" defaulting to off.

The guy who runs that blog does not try to hide the fact that he's a Chrome developer, and he admits that there is the highly unlikely possibility that the person who was asking these questions was not the person who went on to release Iron. I was skeptical as well until I checked out the log file itself and quite honestly it would have to be an incredible coincidence for this guy to be asking such questions and providing the information that he does in his attempts to glean information on the right way to advertise his product as well as how to go about renaming the executable. There's more that makes it very reasonable to believe this is the guy who went on to release Iron, so please don't dismiss it until you've checked out the log file in detail. If this was a supremely unnecessary and elaborate hoax it sure is pulled off convincingly.

Using Iron after reading this information made me feel like I was supporting the wrong guy here and I couldn't do it anymore, it was just too uncomfortable seeing that this guy was looking for adsense revenue and to make a name for himself. The attitude of this developer is not one I would encourage at all.

As a further clarification, it's late night and I'm sorry I didn't word myself better, but what I was getting at is how so many people in the US who don't like Obama feel the need to call him a leftist, a socialist, a communist, when in reality he is so far detached from left-wing politics as to be depressing for those who are proponents of the left. One need only look at the health care reform bill and the speed at which DADT is being addressed to realize this. There are of course numerous other issues but these are the current thorns in my own side. If Obama was a hardline liberal then things would be dramatically different.

I genuinely despair that this is the truth of the matter for most people in the US.

Your "pretty much" attitude is a testament to your intellectual laziness. We know lots about her if we (this second we is referring to you specifically) bother to actually educate ourselves and do some reading. Most people don't initially know a lot about her because, whoa, go figure, most people don't follow specific institutions such as Harvard Law in an effort to profile rising talent that may or may not be tapped in the future. You're also using that word Progressive as a pejorative again without seeming to understand that there is nothing Progressive about a number of the stances on the issues that Obama and Kagan hold. Obama is a centrist, just as Bush was a centrist, just as Clinton was a centrist, and so on and so on. As for your karma to burn and complaining about moderation, awesome.

I'd like to see your obviously impressive resume since you are so keen to disregard the success, academic or otherwise, of others whom you disagree with before having a complete and firm grasp over what they may or may not be thinking, and how their thought processes work. Kagan graduated magna cum laude in 1986 from Harvard Law School and has been furthering herself ever since. Are you implying that a SCOTUS nominee must be a federal judge for something like 20+ years before serious consideration? What are the fundamental prerequisites in your mind here? You can disagree with her views on things without dismissing her prestigious career (before you think to sling mud at using that term, look it up and realize it fits when speaking of someone who has had such resounding success in her career) as if it's nothing more impressive than getting a GED through the mail. Furthermore, that goes for Obama as well. It's astounding that you project your ignorance of these people and what they've done before they got under a spotlight as some sort of disqualifier. "I never heard of them, so WTF! They are obviously not qualified and are plucked from obscurity!"

The rest of your drivel is an intellectual bore not stating anything of significance, and I can see that we're done here because you are comfortable to wallow in your ignorance like a pig in the mud.

TL;DR version: The world does not revolve around you and what you are immediately aware of.

You've got some "clairvoyance" there to comfortably map out her entire SCOTUS career when she still has to make it through both the confirmation process and said career if she does get confirmed. It's completely reasonable to be wary of any incoming nomination to the most powerful court of the land. It's absolutely unreasonable to respond to a measured statement like "she might have a secret agenda but it's more likely she's just not very biased about stuff" with "Are really that naive or are you just a shill"? You sound like quite the shill yourself (I'm ignoring the qualifier of being paid of in some way since you are ignoring it too), essentially touting the Conservative talking points as if because Obama nominates her she is going to assume every single position that you personally disagree with, because she's obviously one of "them" if Obama nominated her.

I don't like her nomination, I personally don't think that replacing the liberal Stephens with the apparently executive-branch-friendly Kagan is necessarily the best way to go. But it takes a special kind of ignoramus to start yelling that the sky is falling because all you need to know about her you learned when you discovered what a dirty word "Progressive" is in your mind. Slap that label on her, it's obviously important to you to show other people how distasteful it is. The truth of the matter is that she's not expressed many (if any) really Progressive ideas so most of your post is vapid hot-air complaining at length about what every Conservative has been saying about every Liberal in recent history.

It will be interesting to see if Opera is able to maintain that crown. Chrome and Opera both are getting faster and faster with JavaScript and other things but I really wish that the Linux version wasn't lagging behind the Windows/Mac version.