This is the fault in the logic of most people who introduce political bias in scientific conversation. But it's not only the people's fault and into that much I'll agree with you. The way things work in any country is a for a candidate to peek a theme that will be his campaign and message to get him elected, depending on how popular the notion is at that period of time. Some politicians might be more sincere than others and believe in their campaign and message most of them don't. I am not sure if Gore believes in global warming (yes global warming not climate change) but that was the theme of his campaign and he seemed to pursue it even after his defeat in the presidential elections. This provided benefits and drawbacks. One of the benefits was that an issue that is quite real got more exposure and it wasn't just scientists trying to get the attention of the population and one of the drawbacks is that it became a political issue when it is actually a survival issue. Not of the earth (the earth doesn't give two ....s about humans and life) and other species but mainly our survival and our current way of life as we know it. The second part of my last sentence is another big discussion but let's not focus on that for the time being. On one hand scientists grasped on to the exposure to try and get their message across but on the other hand it became a debate for people with political agendas and camps where set from either side. I'll tell you one thing, scientists care about the facts and will support the facts regardless of political beliefs. It's not a left wing thing as I'm sure a big amount of that 90 something percent of scientists supporting global warming are not tree hugging hippies holding hands and singing songs for the well being of mother earth. I'll bet you that a lot of them are conservatives. And we come back to the first sentence of this paragraph, that scientific facts help you transcend political bias. Unless there is an immediate benefit and profit to be made by supporting an opposing position which is the case for this issue. Unfortunately the main title of this thread sets the mood correctly, that there is a war on science. There was always a war on science, especially when it didn't suit the narrative of any political system in place. Or to say it a bit more accurately, some science was ok but a lot wasn't.