Malcolm was commenting on the occasion of Martin Luther King receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.

He got the peace prize, and we got the problem.. ... If I'm following a general, and he's leading me into a battle, and the enemy tends to give him rewards, or awards, I get suspicious of him. Especially if he gets a peace award before the war is over.

Yves Smith explains the awfulness of the current bill:

The Great Right Hope

This stuff is so old, it's not even worth talking about.

Trying reading some basic science or even one of the thousands of words written on the demarcation of religion and science.

Religious belief cannot be refuted; scientific hypotheses can.

"The argument for limiting the tax exclusion is that the tax break on health insurance encourages over-spending, so limiting it could help in the process of "bending the curve". More generally, since we think the United States spends too much on health for not-so-good results, it makes sense where possible to pay for expanding coverage from the health sector itself. Both arguments are reasonable."

Hysterically enough, he doesn't even consider the reason why Americans "the United States spends too much on health for not-so-good results" is because of the profit margins of the insurance industries with their 30% administrative costs (compared with the 5% for Medicare).

Whatever.

ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) -- Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

<snip>

To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

Among the messages that Sensenbrenner read was one from Jones, the East Anglia scientist, in which he wrote about a "trick of adding in the real temps" in an exchange about long-term climate trends.

Of course if you think what Phil Jones thinks I guess you need to trick'em.

Another Jones' e-mail read, "I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right."

That's a very plain statement that Jones doesn't think climate change has happened so he wants it to so he can be proven right.

So much for consensus, eh?

;-)

The major difference between the two "theories" is that one is based on ACTUAL accumulated evidence/facts from the fossil record and the other is based on wishful thinking and the desire of social liberals to roll over for the religious right.