Thanks, q_r. Interesting history.
As you know, I like Lomborg's cost-benefit methodology. It puts things into context instead of looking at them as absolutes. The main reason I agree with Prager today is that enviromental groups seem to look at things as absolutes, as good or evil. There are always gray areas and trade-offs to consider.
If we could keep some of these discussions out of the political realm and allow a rational discussion to take place we could do the thing that would benfit people most while harming the environment least. Politics is what brings us things like ethanol, harming the environment while increasing the cost of food and fuel.