[PubliusToo]

Thanks for the link to the article. I certainly agree that the rhetoric is out of control. Of course, that was my point when I initially posted my reply to the other article ridiculing the mainstream scientists. Then I was accused of being closed minded ("faith-based") merely because I observed that many reputable qualified scientists think global warming exists and is caused by man-made CO2. Worse, I had the audacity to suggest that some of the alarmist (including bogeyman Al Gore) may actually believe those mainstream scientists are correct and thus may be acting (perhaps mistakenly) out of genuine concern. I must say that the political rhetoric in the U.S. seems to be out of control--on both sides of the aisle. Even scientific debates are reduced to a base argument that "you're either with us or against us." There seems to be very little reasoned debate in the U.S. these days.

[palmer]

bogeyman Al Gore

I would say "leftist Al Gore" typified by his books like Earth in the Balance, only government control and socialism can save us. Once science has been selectively processed into political arguments, you have to expect that the political (with us, against us) type arguments are going to infect the scientific debate. Both sides are guilty of trivializing, exaggerating, repeating non-facts over and over, etc.

You ought to have the luxury of suggesting that the (AGW) science is correct without suggesting Al Gore is fully correct. Cogitator does a pretty good job of arguing the science alone without endorsing (and explicitly criticizing) the leftist solutions proposed by Gore like Kyoto (redistributing wealth from us to socialist dictators in Africa). My only suggestion is to do as much of your own research as possible rather than rely on the media which generally presents only one side.