This NYT op-ed column makes a good case for its argument that , when it comes to global warming, "the best hope for salvation will be investment in new technologies" — and on a massive, multi-billion dollar scale, not the "modest investments in hydrogen" the Bush Administration has proposed.

Is this a wake-up call or what?

Kristof is clueless about both global warming and the potential solutions. As a 30 year veteran of energy R&D there are no easy solutions, and government money won't create any. And we should consider global warming for what it has become, a leftist political agenda item rather than anything with scientific credibility. After all, if the rise in T over the past 125 years is due to CO2, how could the T have dropped drastically from 1945 to 1975, while CO2 increased steadily? Apparently the forces that caused the T decline are more significant than CO2.

Kristof presents an interesting POV. Some might argue with him, but I believe his argument is well-developed and well-sourced. Regardless I agree with his opinion, or not. I recommend to read it just to get a sense of a conversation.