whoops, our bad

remember that whole "global warming is going to melt the icecaps and kill us all" shpeil? turns out that it may actually save lives. who knew?

question of the day

global warming: to be, or not to be? depends on which part of asia you live in, i guess. it was much more fun yesterday, when they both showed up as headlines on the asia-pacific section of the bbc website.

quote of the day

"As for the climate, you could take every dollar spent on "global warming" and blow it on internet porn, and the Earth's climate in 2050 will be pretty much what it would be anyway." --Mark Steyn

not only that, but your money would be doing much more for the economy. i say it's a win-win situation.

whoops

anybody else see a contradiction here? and if so, is anyone actually surprised?

whoops

get out and drive, america: walking causes global warming.

h/t wizbang

liberal logic, or the lack thereof

from orson scott card:

Brod actually admits precisely what he's doing, when he says: "Fortunately, people finally seem to understand the fallacy of requiring proof."

Think about that. He calls it a fallacy to require proof.

read the whole article (on global warming)... i've always been a fan of card's novels, and he puts that same skill to use in his weekly column.

h/t pw

listen to... well, not john travolta

because let's face it, a guy who owns five jets doesn't doesn't exactly have the "moral high ground" when it comes to global warming.

more proof that MKH is awesome

now there's a fun thought

buying your way to kyoto compliance. i think it would be awesome if we actually went for it; though i would prefer to see the funds to do so raised by cutting spending in some area, rather than by raising taxes on gas.

do as i say, not as i do

seems to be how algore rolls. as in, his home uses roughly twice as much energy in one month as the average american home does in one year. bush's ranch at crawford, however--and this actually surprised me--is incredibly eco-friendly. who knew?

h/t wizbang