In large part environmentalist were green only as a means to shout and scream.... their main objective is to "be against" the establishment. Since that is also the definition of an anarchist you can assume they are anarchists. GreenPeace is an oxymoron. Even if you demonstrated that fracing has zero probability of causing any problems they will still speak out against it.

Obama cannot not resort to hyperbolic rhetoric because he does not have any other way and he does not have basic policies other than to scream from the pulpit ... something he learned from Reverend Jeremiah Wright. His rhetorical overreach was clear long before he was placed in the Senate and elected as President for one term.

We have spent over several thousand years (from the time of Plato and Aristotle to Berkeley to Hume to Russell, Whitehead, to Mach and Schlick and others of the Vienna School to Popper and Wittgentstein... to AJ Ayers and others) to understand the logic of science and how we think. Kanneman and Tversky and others taught of the errors of human cognitive bias Norman Davies of propaganda (Five Rules of Propaganda: 1) endless repetition, repeating the same messages over and over with different variations and combinations
2. Disfiguration: discrediting the opposition with slander and crude parodies
3. Unanimity: presenting your point of view as if every right headed person agrees with it while smearing those who doubt it thanks...

I disagree on one point, that is the climate gate affair will be the cause for the entire program to be ripped exposed and re-evaluated. The science process has been coopted at least sinse the 1993 UNFCCC convention [OBJECTIVE] mandates the Parties to work to stablize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous "anthropogenic" interference with the climate system. [PRINCIPLES] "... The Parties should take "precautionary measures" to anticipate, prevent or minimize the (anthropogenic) causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, "lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such...

http://www.heartland.org/full/24841/Climate_Alarm_What_We_A re_Up_Against_and_What_to_Do.html

Most arguments about global warming boil down to science versus authority. For much of the public, authority will generally win since they do not wish to deal with science. For a basically political movement, as the global warming issue most certainly is, an important task is to co-opt the sources of authority.

(Having done this) gives the climate alarm movement control over (both) carrots and sticks -- which, in turn is what makes it convenient for most scientists to go along... the carrots are as important...

Here is lead editorial from Nature magazine casting blame on, of course, the climate deniers - skeptics.

Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny.

The full piece is here http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/46254 5a.html

On the scientific case for global warming: To denialists, the scientists' scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial 'smoking gun': proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to...

What is highly educated mean if a man is unprincipled. Look at the list of Dems and can you honestly put a check in the "has princples" column. What a load. Oobama, Clinton, Dodd, Frank, Pelosi. Gawd almighty.

The problem with populist ideologues is eventually the cookie jar is empty and you still have to pay the piper.

President Obama’s talk about doubling exports in five years is either empty rhetoric or more smoke and mirrors, or both. Even using 2009 as the base year, exports of goods and services would have to expand sharply from US$14.4 trillion to $28.9 trillion (current dollars) while exports as a percentage of GDP would ramp up from 11% to around 20%. Simply impossible – and there is no way this will come close to happening. This assumption must come from Obama team looking at the economy as an accounting “tee account” and plugging exports as a source of revenues to fund their massive social programs. And even if the U.S....

The problem with populist ideologues is eventually the cookie jar is empty and you still have to pay the piper.

President Obama’s talk about doubling exports in five years is either empty rhetoric or more smoke and mirrors, or both. Even using 2009 as the base year, exports of goods and services would have to expand sharply from US$14.4 trillion to $28.9 trillion (current dollars) while exports as a percentage of GDP would ramp up from 11% to around 20%. Simply impossible – and there is no way this will come close to happening. This assumption must come from Obama team looking at the economy as an accounting “tee account” and plugging exports as a source of revenues to fund their massive social programs. And even if the U.S....

@Michael IL question on sources. First a comment, it is a fact that laymen cannot easily grasp what is involved in doing science nor how the process can be corrupted by personal interests or non science point of view. The scientific method goes back to early study of logic from early Renaissance philosophers, to Hume, Russell and Whitehead, Wittgenstein, AJ Ayers, etc. It is well known that millennial data show temperature rise leading CO2 rise: see e.g. Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck B. 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712-1714; and Mudelsee, M. 2001. The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice...