My views on AGW haven't changed much. I still believe that most of the current temperature trend is natural, dating back well over a hundred years, that the issue is grossly overblown, that the main sources on the issue have political axes to grind that would give Paul Bunyan a hernia, and that the primary function of the issue right now is to allow states and other centralized authorities to enhance their power and looting capacity (proven by the solutions proposed so far by these entities, and the solutions that are pointedly ignored.)

I think you came out on top recently in a discussion that disagreed with some articles numbers on nuclear power, which isn't at all the same thing.

Just a reminder: I'm on record as disagreeing with Bush on many things. There is no issue on which I hold views simply because Bush does. On the contrary, Bush is fortunate enough to hold some of my views (which I had long before Reagan was elected). Compare to some of the butt-kissing that goes on around here with regard to Obama or Hillary.

Meanwhile, your candidate is talking about faith-based aid, "flexibility" on Iraq, individual right to bear arms, etc. etc.