Makers Unite: Here are instructions for those who would like to make their own cat ears:

http://www.instructables.com/id/Animatronic-Cat-Ears/

I don't think that a Lender is the right analogy. Rather, the Govt is an investor, where the benefits are measured in repaid loans PLUS jobs created PLUS new technologies developed PLUS strategic resource concerns alleviated. Investing in startups means taking different kinds of risks than traditional lenders do - higher risk of default, but bigger payouts when things succeed.

George Clinton supported this in the 1970s

Deniers are not only sociopaths, they're also crying terrified babies. For some reason, they've forgotten what a properly primed market can do. We are seeing adoption of renewable energy sources far in excess of predictions just 8 years ago. Why's that? Some governments are properly incentivizing the research and development of transformative technologies.

Meanwhile, the entrenched interests continue to muddy the situation with studies from the Heartland Institute and other wholly self-serving tools. We _can_ turn things around, and still have a very good standard of living. But the people who profit from the status quo aren't interested in seeing their golden goose fly away.

Amory Lovins of the rocky mountain institute has been teaching businesses how they can save energy and money _at the same time_ since the 70s. He's just published a new book ( a must read for anyone who doesn't want to wring their hands and whimper ) called "Reinventing Fire". It shows how we can transform our economy and enjoy GDP _growth_ - by eliminating inefficiencies, and rewarding new technologies and systems.

We made this mess. If we are willing to try without fear, we can certainly clean it up.

Hear Hear - please bring back the original icons - they were much better because of their 'oddness' - these ones are ultimately sterile.

in the "what are you going to believe, your own eyes?" department...

Research in Phenology (the study of the seasonal changes of plant and animal life) shows significant advances in spring activity at points across the globe.

http://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;324/5929/887
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15592880
http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/Parmesan_2003_Nature.pdf

These are supplemented by anecdotal evidence - particularly in higher latitudes - that things are changing rapidly, and that surroundings are changing with in a generations living memory.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2002/11/the-great-global-experim.html

I see what you did there! These aren't from actual scientific journals - this is from a popular news paper. This post is predictable - yes, global cooling was a fad in the popular media in the 70s. But if the poster had been better informed (or more honest, I can't tell) they would have pointed out that real climate scientists were predicting global warming in the 70s (and earlier!)

Or you could, you know, develop an api that allows the developer to specify which features are necessary, which is then used by the android app store to limit that apps availability. I'm developing for the Android now, and the framework is very nicely thought out, thank you. Fragmentation is a red herring. Dan Morrill at Google on 'fragmentation' http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/05/on-android-compatibility.html

Uhh, no, the overwhelming evidence given by peer reviewed science is the primary driver behind AGW believers. Thats the diff.

There are very few _true_ skeptics.

The difference is that the cooling position was mainly advanced by sensational media, while real scientists (at the same time - 1970s) were already starting to predict global warming - Just like they are today. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

Well, if the big picture means anything to you, the results that CRU came up with align with simulations and observations from NASA and other climate research centers around the world. Why don't you take the raw data and devise your own model for it, or use their methodology?
Yeah, it's a lot of work, but others are doing just that sort of thing now - check out the climate-science site "the Blackboard" - good discussion of the issues there.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/
_there are very few sincere AGW skeptics_

Anyone who would question it without looking at the context and rebuttals would be a skeptic-poseur!
I find again and again that 98% of AGW "skeptics"never dig any farther than the last argument that supports their tribe.
_there are very few sincere AGW skeptics_

Skeptical Science maintains a database of links to peer-reviewed papers. There is currently discussion about which journals are 'peer-reviewed' but this is a good step towards providing information for everyone.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/resources.php?peer=1

I'll warn you though - unless you have strong statistics chops, some of this stuff is hard to plow through. But, there is plenty out there for any _honest_ skeptic.

Well, if you bother to look at the evidence (including the 'most damning' elements held up by the 'skeptics'), you realize that a day of testimony is more than enough to put this witch hunt to rest. _There are very few sincere skeptics among AGW skeptics_

MIT's Scratch http://scratch.mit.edu/ is a remarkable environment that will allow for young programmers (as young as 6 and 7 ) to become familliar with subroutines, variables, conditionals, message passing, etc. in an environment that makes it easy to express things visually. For a 12 year old, it might be worth a month of exploration in that environment, then on to a conventional language.