The irony is overpowering here - the horrible politicization by GW opponents is perhaps the second-best example of politicized science being overshadowed only b

The irony is overpowering here - the horrible politicization by GW opponents is perhaps the second-best example of politicized science being overshadowed only by the disbelief in evolution by creationists. I really don't have the ego to claim I magically know better than thousands of scientists and decades of research, so when I read something like the IPCC report (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm...), or the fact that CO2 Levels are higher today than anytime in the last 800000 years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm) or the fact of the 40% increase since the 1800s (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Di...), my conclusion is pretty obvious. The politicization of GW comes solely from idealogical-opposition - people don't like what the facts imply (ie, we need a smart energy policy) so they simply ignore the facts using a variety of techniques. For example Inhofe and his ilk are the usual anti-intellectuals - no way they'll let some egg-head ivory-tower geek with his crazy computer models tell them what to do, no siree bob. Meanwhile, Crichton is playing the ever-popular Nazi card - "gee, look at how vaguely similar this situation is things that happened under Nazism and Communism. You're not a Nazi or a Commie, are you?"