"ds, if you read the original article, rather than the excerpt in the thread header, you would have seen the x-ref to AGW.
Making you, by your definition, a conservative - point 2."
You're right jandimot. I assumed that greenhart had posted up the entire transcript/article. It is embarrassing and hypocritical when you fail to hold the standards you set set for others.
Given that, my post above is a bit harsh. Apologies benbradley.
On reading the transcript, the segue into the AGW slant is a right hand turn in the article and a bit nutty. And, ben, your further extrapolation of it into a global multi-tiered conspiracy is way out there.
"So, I have 10 liberal characteristics, 1 conservative one and 5 not sures." They are not characteristics per se but simply the findings of 16 separate studies.
