I saw this doozie at the Washington Post.

On the campaign trail, McCain is more than eager to go toe-to-toe with skeptics of global warming who attend his town hall forums. When a man in Michigan asked him last week why the United States was not drilling in the Arctic refuge and off California’s coasts, McCain replied that, as a federalist, he thinks states have the right to make those decisions.

“I can’t say we should drill in the most pristine parts of America,” he told the questioner, adding that he believes in finding new sources of oil, “But I also believe sooner or later we have got to become energy-independent, we’ve got to reduce greenhouse gases. That means nuclear, wind, solar, tide, et cetera.”

Holtz-Eakin said McCain is flexible in his federalist approach when it comes to the question of drilling because, while many Alaskans support opening the Arctic refuge to oil and gas exploration, the senator has concluded that it’s not worth exposing 250 species of wildlife there to damage.

For the most part, McCain follows a fairly instinctive approach to deciding environmental questions. In recent interviews he has said he thinks the government should list polar bears as endangered because shrinking sea ice threatens their survival, that sharks deserve protection because they’re a crucial part of the marine food web, and that the nation needs to act on climate change because it risks an environmental catastrophe if it doesn’t.

Is this the depth of his understanding of the issue.  He claims it’s a states rights issue and his advisor has to go out there and contradict his bosses statement in order to reconcile his actions (voting against development in ANWR) with his statement. 

Meanwhile the candidate thinks that Polar Bears are endangered.  Except that there are more of them than we’ve seen before. PLUS they managed to survive previous warm periods just fine. 

Does this guy care about the facts or just his rhetoric?