From the article that you obviously didn't read:
In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years."
"Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field...
...Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
So there is no political agenda behind the draconian social policies that proponents of global warming want to hoist on the rest of society?
If my opinions are "faith-based," then I must be an agnostic as my plainly stated opinion on global warming (which you quoted verbatim) makes clear. I did, however, read the entire article you posted, which was circulating freely on the internet yesterday and which (perhaps not so coincidentially) I had also received yesterday by email from a friend. Out of curiosity, I conducted a little cursory research to find the opposing point of view. Lo and behold, I easily found the contradictory opinions of qualified reputable scientists who specialize in the subject. Apparently, you did not follow the links I provided for you or, if you did read those articles, have your own scientific religion.
Anyway, I think you have confused cause and effect. The "draconian policies" you perceive the global warming proponents want to "hoist on society" are caused not by a political agenda, but by their obvious acceptance of the global warming theories propounded by reputable qualified scientists. Thus, I think you have erroneously confused policy with motive.
By the way, I really liked the way you turned my phrase "willful ignorance does not make for good public policy" by replying "willful ignorance is the stock-in-trade of demagogues." That was quite clever (and I mean it as a compliment). How about this one as a compromise? Willful ignorance in the pursuit of self-interest is to be expected. That should cover all bases here.