John, you surprise me, I'd have thought you of all people would have known it was a political agenda.
You're right, Rosie. AGW is quinessentially a politcal agenda
, and I do know that. But the point at issue here is not the nature of agenda itself so much as one of identifying clearly the arena
in which that agenda is to be fought
. In my unthinking naivety I just took it for granted that that was the scientific
arena — dynamite the smoke-&-mirrors basis of their case and we've won.
Richard, however, argues (convincingly, in my view) that that is most definitely not
the case. It is only in the political
arena that that fight can take place with decisive effect
and finally be won, by us.
For the alarmists, the pseudoscience underpinning their case is/was merely the equivalent of an airstrip to get their circus flying. Once up they can float along idefinitely on all the hot air they produce. I'm all for bombing their airstrip (and that needs to be done for many reasons, many of which are to do with the health of the practice of science itself, and therefore extremely important) but as far as the strict issue here is concerned I'm just itching to see the bastards blown out of the sky.
By the way, I'm with you on the smoking thing. That too is fully political and all about control.