I think Friedman is right that what the US needs is real  leadership on the public level. Private leadership will then follow.

If entrepreneurs know that their investments aren't going to be erased by the expiration of their tax credits or the undercutting of their price point by cheaper oil then they will be much more willing to commit the resources necessary for clean tech innovation.

Him and Letterman were right, I think, that clean tech is the industry of the future, but right now many of these important technologies are coming from other countries. (e.g., foreign companies own 2/3 of the wind plants currently being built in Texas).

It's interesting how Friedman completely screwed up the description of the science and Letterman straightened things out.  I wonder who L has been talking to?  

"interesting how Friedman completely screwed up the description of the science"

Yep, what a surprise.  From the same MOT (moron of truth, TOM spelled backwards) who still supports the Iraq war.

And says (I summarize to avoid listening to the MOT again),  we need to replace that dirty fuel with clean fuel.  That means ethanol, admit it Friedman  fans.  He has been pushing ethanol for years.

Then he says, if it's a hoax (GHG climate disaster) it's the greatest hoax ever (since the hoax that you helped perpetrate that got us into Iraq?).  It'll revive the economy, so lets do the energy revolution  anyway.  

The fair and balanced approach to the climate "debate".   The MOT simply  condcedes the entire debate to the deniers.  

Well TOM there is a difference.  If all we need is an economic boom and no GHG reduction, then fuel farming fits the bill.

Then Friedman describes upper clouds as reflectors, that melt, then the lower clouds as a blanket?  But MOT, how does the CO2 "melt" clouds.  Has anyone ever heard this nonsense anywhere?  

Friedman ought to retire from public life, recluse himself from mass media delusion. It's dissappointing to see those who spend so much time on these issues actually praising him.

How in the world can the general public become aware of these issues if you can't even understand them?  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

I forgot the brilliant "father greed" line.

Yep, MOT let the hedge funds get in there and trade carbon, that greed will fix things right up, just like it fixed world credit markets.

  Did you know that Bernanke now announces he is lowering the fed rate before the fed meets to do that?  This has traditionally been one of the most closely held secrets on Wall Street.  

To break this rule and lower wily nilly, as has happened recently, completely undermines the credibility of the fed.  It destroys the inflation fighting and emergency global economic insurance functions of the central bank. The two main aspects that insure the pursuit of financial happiness, security and prosperity, for we the people.

Greenspan must be living in a sensory deprivation chamber not to scream about this on every news outlet.  That is the state of your bushwacked "free" markets that are going to use "father greed" to fix the climate.  

Pathetic, really pathetic.  

Congress ought to have thrown Bernanke the hell out of that job when he first met with hedge fund managers so they could explain the credit crisis to him.  The crisis they created, and he trusts them to explain it to him?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Wouldn't you have loved to have Tom Friedman as a teacher?

I thought I'd elaborate on why exactly Friedman's explanation of global warming physics is wrong, in case anyone was curious.  (Even if he meant it as a loose analogy, it was not a good analogy, in my opinion.)  

Friedman described the atmosphere as having an upper cloud layer and a lower cloud layer.  He then said CO2 absorbs sunlight, which is not correct--it absorbs heat radiated by the Earth.  Then he said the absorbed heat melts the upper clouds, increasing the humidity and resulting in a thickening of the lower clouds, which trap more heat.  The problem with this description is that CO2 traps heat directly, not indirectly via clouds.  Changes in cloudiness due to global warming could affect the climate, but whether they'll have a net warming or cooling effect is uncertain.  And CO2 doesn't exactly melt clouds in one layer and thicken clouds in another.

Also, actual clouds work in the opposite way of what Friedman described--high clouds trap heat, while low clouds reflect sunlight, cooling the climate.

Amazngdrx,

While his opening analogy of how the greenhouse effect works may have been flawed, your other criticisms of Friedman's positions are incorrect or hearsay.  For example, your pinning the hoax/denier thing on him just means you were tired and misheard him.  Listen again.  Listen to his appearances on Charlie Rose and Fresh Air on-line this week.

No person in America is introducing the political middle to the green energy revolution as much as Mr. Friedman.  It is helpful to know an ally when you come across one.

Sorry about the off-topic post--especially since it is my first post...but please fix the audio on this and/or all future postings. It's not hard to do.

It's always tempting to point at anecdotes as evidence of global warming, like the number of hurricanes in a season. But those anecdotes cut both ways and do not serve us well. Basically, it allows the philosophically-entrenched knee-jerk types to become more entrenched. "What global warming? I heard Washington had record snowfalls this past winter." It isn't necessary. While we should definitely take notice of record-shattering weather events, I think we should be more concerned about overall trends. Diminishing glaciers and ocean levels are much better evidence of global warming.