Sadly, this debate seems to have got to the point of people posting individual articles which support/reinforce their previously held positions. I'm not seeing anyone trying to move from the arguments to sensibly discuss what we might all agree to actually do.

I know its fun to deride Sarah Palin/Al Gore (delete as appropriate..) but can't we be a bit more constructive here?

For example, even if one is a conservative and thinks that the IPCC are a bunch of commie/liberals etc, isn't there still a case for investing in renewable energies, and not driving the largest gas-guzzling SUV you can find? (btw I'm not trying to stereotype or suggest that all Conservatives are NASCAR loving V8 drivers, just trying to find consensus).

Hasn't America's high demand for gasoline from crude oil helped to make people like Chavez, Bin Laden, and Putin rich and/or powerful? (I know the US gets much of its oil from Canada, but high demand from America helps to put up the world price for M.East and other crude). Wouldn't driving electric or fuel cell vehicles powered from Solar thermal plants in Texas/Nevada be a patriotic thing to do? Perhaps someone could articulate the 'Conservative Case for Conservation' ?

For those who firmly believe in AGW, wouldn't it be a better tactic to push for investment (possibly funded by carbon taxes or cap n' trade) rather than just keeping on telling the sceptics that 'they're wrong' (whether they are or not)?