Just as people claim scientists are paid to have certain opinions, I wonder how much people like Stossel are paid for these worthless articles.

I read David Evans' spot in FPComment. Let me be clear. What I read is alarming. If CURRENT models are using assumptions that truly have been proven false, I would like to know that. However, none of his claims are linked to references, and he does not volunteer any piece of research or observational data. Can anyone direct me, or help narrow my search?

That would seem to be the wrong way to go. Could there be no scientists or retired scientists who want to become government agents?

Shubi...if you are trying to help us convince people climate science is a hoax, please do not post ignorant comments. Carbon dioxide is not 'plant food', it is something they take in and use during photosynthesis. There is no evidence I've seen that Earth's plant life are absorbing all CO2. Arguments without basis in fact undermine themselves. We'll never get to the truth through conventional wisdom.

Doesn't it bother the readers that Kevin Glass is not even a serious commentator of any sort? How much do you think he gets paid to read the news and spin it without a whit of thoughtfulness?

I appreciate what this opinion piece is trying to accomplish. However, who is Chuck Norris?

There are zero grounds to call the president a liar.

When you start telling people not to listen to the president, that he's deceiving them, tricking them, betraying them...that's utterly irresponsible.

Maybe people think it's cute to imply that Barack Obama is a traitor; I think it's self indulgent and childish.

I'm not interested in debating my own character.

What should be done about healthcare? Are there any ideas from the opposition to reform? How can you successfully deny services to non citizens without leaving them to our emergency rooms?

I agree that Congress is a huge part of the problem. I don't like a governing body beholden campaign backers. I think the results of rejecting TARP were too unpredictable to risk. I am disappointed in a lack of financial regulatory reform.

Feel free to tell me what we can't do.

But I'm more focused on what can be done.

Ms. Coulter is very practiced at tearing down the ideas of others.

I appreciate her ability to argue a point without actually having one.

I am put under the impression that Ms. Coulter does not approve of the existence of Medicare. That would be a legitimate discussion to have, even if it is a bit late in the game. Social welfare programs will always stick in the throat of a somewhat free market society like ours.

Unfortunately, we operate under a system of taking turns. The previous administration, of which Ms. Coulter was at least occassionally a supporter, failed to avert most of the problems we are facing, both fiscally and socially. Republicans emptied the coffers with abandon, and now demand they be shut...

Certainly, Cash for Clunkers is by no means a real solution to the problems the country currently faces. To suggest otherwise is naive and disingenuous. But much of the criticism is naive as well.

Either the program did what it was intended to do, or not. It got cars sold, it took some less efficient vehicles off the roads, it got some people back to work, it provided a short boost to auto companies.

Stossel is no great thinker to bring up lost income to mechanics, or other retail sellers. Actually, it's a ridiculous comparison. Car buyers would have spent the money on something else? Sure, if I want to buy a house, and the government doesn't give me an incentive, it's a good way to get me to...buy a golf cart?...