This week: Prop. 23 - Kochs give, KVMR/Frisch/Rebane; and McKibben

Prop 23 (essentially, "Paralyze California's Global Warming Solutions Act") news:

The Kansas-based Kochs have now weighed in, as it were, with a hefty million-dollar "Yes on 23" contribution from a Koch Industries subsidiary, Flint Hills Resources. Campaign finance data here.

KVMR hosted a Prop. 23 "discussion, not a debate" with Steve Frisch and George Rebane on Wed. eve; see Jeff Pelline's "before" and "after" posts for details and discussion.
No transcript available, but you can listen to the audio recording.

Rebane put out some whoppers; most prominently the claim, delivered decisively, that "There is no scientific consensus that there is anthropogenic global warming"(*). He has since refused to answer my emailed Qs asking exactly what he meant by this statement and how he would recognize a consensus if one existed, saying I should search his blog for answers.
(If you can find clear ones, please do share in the comments...)

"The value journalists continue to provide in a "disintermediated," Net-enabled world -- when they are doing their jobs right, of course -- is to continue to ask public figures the uncomfortable questions that they won't choose to answer on their own."
- Scott Rosenberg

Rebane's claim is false, of course; see infographic illustrating that (from Skeptical Science)

...[peer reviewed] studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009)

Does it matter: hell yes. This week's Sacramento News and Review has Bill McKibben saying it's now up to us - "The time has come to get mad, and then to get busy"; "Making nice doesn’t work"; "it's time to talk about global warming" (not dress it up in words that poll better). And:

"If we’re going to slow global warming in the very short time available to us, then we don’t actually need an incredibly complicated legislative scheme that gives door prizes to every interested industry and turns the whole operation over to Goldman Sachs to run. We need a stiff price on carbon, set by the scientific understanding that we can’t still be burning black rocks a couple of decades hence. That undoubtedly means upending the future business plans of Exxon Mobil and BP, Peabody Energy and Duke Energy, not to speak of everyone else who’s made a fortune by treating the atmosphere as an open sewer for the byproducts of their main business. Instead they should pay through the nose for that sewer, and here’s the crucial thing: Most of the money raised in the process should be returned directly to American pockets. The monthly check sent to Americans would help fortify us against the rise in energy costs, and we’d still be getting the price signal at the pump to stop driving that SUV and start insulating the house."