You have to admit, regardless of the merits or demerits of evolution, which I steadfastly refuse to argue with anyone anymore, that there is more than a passing similarity between the way that this discovery has been hailed and the way that agw is constantly publisized, and that both are adored by the msm.
It may, as you seem to feel, be an unfortunate alliance by association, but the similarity is there.
You’re right about presentation, but I believe that there are several key differences.
First, on merits, there are as many scientists lined up in opposition to AGW as there are in support. One can’t say the same about evolution. Furthermore, it is easy to align supporters of AGW with the political philosophies of their sources of funding. TOE has no such monolithic face.
Secondly, there’s the age issue. AGW has been vogue for a relatively short time. In fact, it is the successor “theory” to what was held in the 70s as the exact opposite (cooling). TOE has survived the scientific process for 150 years, and it has changed drastically over that time. That’s good science, despite what its opponents feel.
Third, we have the issue of push vs. pull. AGW supporters are pushing it as a liberal political position—that is their intent. On the other hand, there is no organized, uniform political push on the part of TOE—in fact, it is only its opponents whose pull of TOE in that direction that has been picked up by the press.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.