Now, there's no excuse not to know.

You're a click away from finding out which politicians are accepting money from the oil giants -- and just how much.

It's called Follow the Oil Money. Brought to you by Oil Change International. Punch in your zip code, and voila, Big Oil's influence over politics in America quickly reveals itself.

Today the New York Times published its picks for the presidential primaries (Clinton & McCain) in two lengthy pieces that filled its editorial columns.

In the 1147 words devoted to discussing Hillary's merits and positions on the issues, the words "energy", "global warming" and "climate" did not appear in a single instance.

In the 737 words devoted to discussing McCain's merits and positions on the issues, "global warming" was mentioned twice -- both times in the context of discussing McCain's ability to take a stand in the face of his party's orthodoxy. The word "energy" did not appear in a single instance.

We -- and many others --have noted before how the media has egregiously ignored the issue of global warming in campaign coverage; and how pollsters similarly ignore the issue.

And now the New York Times, the newspaper of record, has committed the same inexcusable error of omission. Here's further evidence, from its commentary on Clinton and Obama:

On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.

It's at times like these that the abbreviated exclamations of the blogosphere -- WTF, OMFG, etc. -- are so useful and appropriate.

Here's an opening line we're unlikely to hear when the President addresses a joint session of Congress on Monday night.

Madame Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished guests, fellow citizens: Our peace and prosperity have both been squandered by the foreign and domestic policies I've advocated since taking office seven years ago. Most especially, I regret having rejected the Kyoto climate treaty and having missed the opportunity to blaze a bright path to the new energy economy the world so desperately needs. And so tonight I want to lay out a new strategy for restoring America's badly damaged standing in the world.

Let's remember it was on March 19, 2003 when America's commander in chief dishonestly led the country to a war in Iraq. Still at war almost five years later, America is now leading the way to global economic decline, thanks to oil at $100 a barrel and the fundamental dishonesty underlying the sub-prime lending debacle.

But let's not count on the bare naked truth to be uttered by the man most responsible for it, when in fulfillment of Constitutional duty, he provides the nation with his last and final accounting of the state of the union. He has never been known for an ability to recognize his mistakes, nor to tolerate others who do.

Instead we'll see on prime time the craft of speech-writing turned to most mendacious use; with the most outrageous rhetorical excesses punctuated by partisan eruptions of applause; and the whole spectacle analyzed ad nauseam with punditry, pandering and protestation. If you had to bet, it's far more likely we'll hear this opening line from the 2002 address, recycled.

As we gather tonight, our nation is at war, our economy is in recession, and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers. Yet the state of our Union has never been stronger. (Applause.)

His father was chased from office by an opponent who understood the score then -- that it was the economy, stupid. Times have changed.

Now, it's the climate, stupid.

If one of the world's largest exporters of corn converts part of its crop from food to fuel it will create food insecurity all over the world. Especially in poor nations that have undeveloped agricultural bases of their own.

That's the lesson that has emerged from America's corn ethanol policy.

Evidence Indonesia for the latest. It's facing sky-rocketing prices, food scarcity, bubbling riots and political unrest.

How come?

It is not news, nor of much great concern to most Americans, that in the international arena over the last 7 years, the US has been disengaged and overtly obstructive of climate progress. That's why discussion of climate solutions in the presidential race remain largely insular, and the most common approach to the global dimension of the issue is through finger-pointing.

Look at India and China, and their skyrocketing emissions!

And the thinking -- if you can call it that -- essentially stops there. Nobody stops to look at a map of the earth -- like the one pictured here with big red dots showing everyone's got big carbon-spewing power plants.

It's too bad you can't win votes when a recession looms by talking about forging solutions with international economic competitors. And the bromides and slogans on energy and climate tailored to manipulate voters just don't come close to getting at a true picture of the hole we are in and the global solutions that are truly needed.

There's some awfully bad news about emissions coming at us from developing nations, news that will probably reinforce the finger-pointing reflex, when it ought to be treated with reflection - the kind provoked by looking into a mirror and being disturbed by what you see.