Joe Lieberman ... a name to drive most here to hypertension.  A name all too often connected with mistaken paths, whether on Iraq or Iraq or Habeas Corpus or ...

Is this name about to take a shift and take a leading position in the US Senate on what is, quite likely, the defining issue of the century?

At the moment, there is the Lieberman-Warner bill on Global Warming.  It is, well, marginal and focus on seven years, rather than seven generations. 

Has Joe changed his mind on a critical issue, suggesting that he is placing Americans (and the globe's) interests before the concerns of special interests?

Amid the discussions of Global Warming today and in the years to come, vigilance to language, to framing, to nuance is and will remain an imperative as we seek a path forward to a sustainable and prosperous energy future (Energize America).

The obfuscation effort, the campaign to confuse the globe on Global Warming continues unabated despite Exxon's well-publicized claims to cut off funding for their campaign.

A coming cold day for a warm globe, in that stalwart of rational journalism -- The Washington Times, is another shot in the battle to confuse on facts to inhibit rational decision-making on how to deal with Global Warming challenges.

To start with, this is The Washington Times and, well, how seriously balanced can one consider an article that rants about "the received theology of the Worldwide Church of Science" with "Archbishop Gore". In other words, the article will speak well to those who are ideologically oriented (e.g., Times readership?) to reject Global Warming, no matter the information -- this is not speaking to anyone concerned about Reality-Based policy making.

A week ago, The Washington Post Outlook section featured, under the banner "FACT CHECK", a malicious attack on Al Gore starting off with flagrantly false information.

The outrage floursished ...

As per Gorephobia Prominent in the Washington Post,

Looking toward mankind's relationship with and use of natural resources (whether fossil fuels, water, air, or otherwise), one serious question we all must ask is whether humanity has overshot. Whether

Mankind has exceeded the carrying capacity of its habitat and will have to face some sort of adjustment to go back into balance with it.

Was Malthus right? Are there, simply, limits beyond which we can't go beyond in a sustainable fashion? And, if we've exceeded those limits -- if we've facing Overshoot -- what can we do about it?

The automobile industry is investing "way north" of one million dollars to gin up grass roots opposition to the Senate proposals for moving automobile fuel standards to 35 miles by 2020.