Oh, yeah, and anyone who uses the phrase 'weaponized against individual freedom' isn't arguing climate change, they're arguing politics.
It is not political to say that politics influence things. It is merely a sad fact of life, and must be accounted for. I think you're too quick to dismiss things that don't uphold your current beliefs. This is known as 'scientific bias'.
But anyways, here's just a tiny taste from a cursory search -
Politics is relevant as it provides the undercurrent to the discussion. It is in fact the main source of climate change funding. It seems the AGW camp would rather hide these realities away. Why?
Why is open discussion about funding sources so anathema in this particular debate? Why are skeptical and objective researchers made to feel like they're talking to the Spanish Inquisition? Whoever disagrees is sure to face demonization (being compared to a holocaust 'denialist'), personal attacks (being accused of dishonest intentions), and even threats of personal harm. This is anything but scientific.
I don't care what side of the debate you fall on, the chicanery at play should be painfully apparent. Science is all about method, and the AGW methods are politically compromised. Until we all accept this elephant is in the living room, the debate will almost certainly not move forward.