re: #1170 Naso Tang

Sorry, but you don’t seem able to keep this as a rational discussion about whether the science is right or wrong. It sounds too familiar to some other similar conceptual arguments we have here on other matters.

There is a great emotional investment, on the part of some, in hating Al Gore and the UN, and while I’ve tried to come up with ways to convince people that the science of climatology’s results are valid (in the sense used for any scientific endeavor), whether or not Al Gore or the UN agree or disagree with the results…. I’ve failed so far to convince many on this board.

Somehow, in the minds of some, climatologists are in some great conspiracy.

Al Gore is a politician… which means like all politicians he must be an opportunist and find causes and constituencies to represent. Fortunately for him he tied his wagon to the scientific endeavor, and can sail right along and not really worry (since he is not in office and thus does not have to make decisions that have to be explained to people whom he would need for votes to get re-elected) about what to do next… he just waits around for the next scientific meeting, collects some cool slides, and keeps on chugging.

That so many ID supporters and sympathizers (e.g., “teach both” politicians) try to use AGW as a wedge issue to split off non-scientists who accept evolution from the general pro-science segment of the electorate… is just that, a version of their Wedge Strategy.