Well, perhaps not fickle, but inconstantly reliable.

Mizz Paglia has a fine mind, which I've admired along with her writing skills. But her response to Mr. Randall suggested her mental gears had slipped a cog. He was NOT alluding to the Cold War, but specifically to the war on terror, and there was no reason to suppose he was referring to anything else.

There was no reason to assume he was making any comparison between the Cold War and the war on Muslim jihadism, other than to allow some supercilious comments.

Obama strings together run-on sentences punctuated by long, drawn-out, high-pitched, droning "aaaaaaaannnnnds" and the occasional "BUTTTT." In between the "ands" and the "buts," there are a lot of self-evident platitudes with very little substance. His chief accomplishment is either winning elections or driving his opponents out of the race by accessing their divorce records.

None of this gives any indication that he's going to govern wisely or well. But one can HOPE, as the Obama campaign has repeatedly repeated!

Re global warming, I note that those asking for "proof" of your position, that the evidence favors natural solar cycles as the driver of climate temperature change, never notice that the various theories are so far all simply that, hypotheses, of which NONE has been "PROVEN." The manmade global warming hypothesis is certainly the weakest, based as it is upon the THEORY that CO2 changes are a driver of temperature change, and that the only things supporting this theory are computer models, not direct observation. Indeed, CO2 levels appear to change several centuries AFTER temperature changes. An immutable law, until time machines are invented, is that causes cannot follow effects.

Your position is supportable by evidence that the entire solar system warms with sun cycles. This is quite suggestive, but is not PROOF as yet, to be sure.

Blaine Walgren's letter and your response were both delights in keen observation, even keener logic and in a fairness lacking in political discourse of late. Thanks very much, both.

Regarding those left-wingers who display ungentlemanly natures and no loyalty, who turn on anyone who does not adhere to the far-left line, they are pit-chihuahuas nipping at your ankles. Keep kicking them!

You misunderstand, clearly. I have NOT said that the greenhouse effect does not exist! What I have said is that CO2 changes FOLLOW temperature changes, near as scientific measurements of glaciers, sediments, etc., can show. What I COULD have said is that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, that computer models showing it is significant are WRONG, going wildly off the path of any reasonable approximation, and thus the parameters must constantly be "revised," (read "fudged") in order to give the answers that the modelers have ASSUMED should result. In other words, they are scientific bullshit, to use a technical term.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Greenhouse Effect. But believing in a greenhouse effect does NOT mean that one must believe in manmade global warming or that CO2 is a significant element of that greenhouse effect.