If Global Warming is a science issue then stop trying to make political arguments.
You are LOSING the political battle. Stop fighting. Everything since Al Gore started organizing this movement has been one political miscalculation after another.
Why would you expect otherwise? This is the same guy that lost to GWB after serving a Bill Clinton's Vice President for eight years. That election was in the bag. And he blew it by thinking that attacking guns in the middle of a presidential election was a good idea.
Outside the U.S. , nobody knows who Al Gore is. Actually, nobody inside the U.S. knows either.
Every single serious presidential contender until Obama made sure they had a picture of themselves holding a shotgun or something in their national ads. Think about that.
Bush Didn't. Thank God. Cheney did a few years after, though.
Seriously. If you don't want this to a political campaign then stop treating it like a political campaign. Swiftboating? Are you fucking high? You're going to bring up that shit that John Kerry was whining about? Stop listening to failed politicians to structure your political arguments.
John Kerry didn't say much about it, neithe did McCain, who was the one who really got rucked.
If you want sound political advice, talk to someone that wins. Talk to Bill Clinton. I'm sure he'd be happy to give you some advice. He'd probably tell you to stop being such royal pricks and try to build some bridges. Which is probably why you like Al Gore... he probably says "fuck the opposition we are right!"... which is possibly the dumbest political advice possible.
If you want to talk about science, then show me a tested climate model that has been subjected to an empirical test of its validity. It isn't that hard guys. We have a lot of very accurate historical data. Feed in past climate data and see if your climate model can predict the past or the present accurately. The first model that can do that which isn't just a collection of plug variables is something worth taking seriously.
Models are nice. Reality is nicer.
Until you have that model... you have no theory. There is no global warming theory without a tested model. You have rather a global warming hypothesis. To get a theory you need a validated model. You do not have that at this moment so far as I know. Which means... you have jack.
See 200 years of climate data plus another 1000 or so from recovered ice.
Which is a problem because you're losing the political argument. If on top of losing the political argument you're also unable to provide a validated climate model... then what we have here is a platform sustained almost entirely by hubris and graft.
Polictical arguments won't save the planet from bullshit
Please contradict me... show me your validated model.
Have a nice day!