A few thoughts…

* First up… I had to laugh because Logan and I had this very Libertarian discussion several years back, with Logan explaining that he identified more with certain Libertarian principles and not so much with the political party.

* I’m a self-proclaimed left-leaning moderate. While I acknowledge for a lot of people, this can be a cop out. For me, it’s more about where I tend to fall on the issues and less about the lack of strength or passion in my opinions. I’m more conservative on some issues and less conservative on others. By and large though, I tend not to be incredibly ideological on a lot of specific issues and my views tend to be centrist when compared to the poles.

* I enjoy reading Tyler Cowan and Megan McCardle. Cowan also blogs at Volokh. I pretty much enjoy reading anyone from the right, left or center (or Libertarian mix) that is thoughtful.

* On Climategate, I’m not a scientist, so I have to rely on the expertise of others. I’ve found RealClimate.org to be a great resource and very even-handed. They have some good posts giving context to the CRU-hack (see here and here ). Illya Somin has some interesting thoughts on the social validation of knowledge. As a larger matter, my dad raised us Bohns with a healthy dose of skepticism, teaching us to question the limits of what scientific inquiry purports to prove… so I tend not to get overly dogmatic about things like anthropogenic climate change (if turns out to be true, I won’t be distraught)… but in spite of the climategate scandal, it seems to me to be the best explanation we currently have for the evidence at this point. Are there contradictions or ambiguities within that set of evidence? Could there be some element of group think setting in? Most assuredly… science, in my view, is often fraught with contradictions, ambiguities and just plain dead ends, and group think can often be a problem. But, from my non-scientist perspective, it seems like these are pretty well-founded theories. Are there proponents of each that wildly overreach what evidence can show? Sure, but dogmatists on each side are always prone to such overreaching. Doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot of truth in the underlying claims. Which leaves right about where ya’ll ended at. How do we cope with what the evidence seems to show? There’s no clear path that right now that wouldn’t be incredibly destructive to our economy and way of life. Just small steps that don’t seem to tackle the problem.

* Never upgraded to Vista… still rolling XP. Probably won’t upgrade. When it comes down to it, I’ll buy another computer in a year or two than deal with the hassle.

* Didn’t you guys ever see the original V miniseries?!! Wow. Sheltered. Glee is fun. The football “all the single men” episode was just fantastic. Mad Men is great (just two seasons in right now) and Dexter is hands down the best show on TV right now.I think Dexter is done plausibly enough that you can suspend your disbelief.

Oh, and I do wonder if you weren’t a bit hasty to make more of Climategate than is truly there. I think it says a ton about how some unscrupulous philosopher-king scientists act. Not sure it completely discredits the idea that it behooves us to move away from carbon-based fuels. As a true political Independent, I have no a priori stance here, and am happy to let it sort out. I have never found the extremes on this issue (and, indeed, perhaps most issues) all that persuasive, as there often seems to be the all-too-predictable overplaying of the hand.