Yeah, I noticed you got to that somewhere in the middle.

My point was that I do not make scientific claims on the basis of politics- this is NOT a political issue, it just IS! You insist on making this about politics!

It may not be political for you. It definitely is political for a lot of the people pushing it, and for a lot of those pushing back. No reasonable person watching how this is proceeding could say otherwise.

For them, this isn't about climate. It's about power.

As with pretty much EVERY kind of crisis that has come up in recent decades, real or imagined, environmental and otherwise, the solutions we are almost always presented with are those that increase the power of a centralized authority, and decrease individual freedom and choice.

One touchstone I use in the global warming issue is the attitude about nuclear power. Nuclear power presents the possibility of reducing carbon output without seriously affecting our lifestyles (especially as electric transportation comes into wider use).

This does not seem to appeal to the kind of personality that drools at the idea of controlling human activity at every level--the cars we drive, the light bulbs we use, and industrial and economic activity across the board. For them, the appealing thing about scarcity is that scarcity needs to be "managed," and they would be more than happy to do that.

These are the similar to the people who, during the "cold fusion" flap, were actually angry at the idea of humanity having clean, and above all, abundant energy.

These aren't just wierdo academics, either. Al Gore falls into this category. Hillary is another.

Just to keep things clear, note that most of the warming advocates on this board have no problem at all with nuclear power being part of the solution, and would be deliriously happy if fusion became feasible. A "space board" tends to select for that type.