Of course it's political. Absolutely it's political. Everything is political when it comes to protecting and preserving liberties. As someone who is prepared to accept the idea that man's activity affects the climate (although I refuse to believe - and evidence supports me here - that we're the only cause of changing climate), I know it is political.
Which is why people like Sir Paul Nurse (why do they always mention his Nobel Prize - it wasn't in climate science and he's no more qualified to opine on the subject than I am, perhaps less so) need to be challenged:
A feature of [the global warming] controversy is that those that deny there is a problem often seem to have political or ideological views that lead them to be unhappy with the actions that would be necessary should global warming be due to human activity. I think that’s a crucial point. Because these actions that are likely to include measures which include concerted world action, curtailing the freedom of individuals or companies or nations, and curbing some kinds of industrial activity.’
Sir Paul's conclusion is that we have to stop people doing things - curtail freedom in response to climate change. I absolutely and completely reject this conclusion - we need to be prepared, we need to respond to the technical and scientific challenges of a changing climate. But we don't need to wreck the world's economy and condemn billions - and still more billions yet unborn - to a short, painful and grinding life of poverty.
You're all right Sir Paul, you've lovely comfortable jet-setting life. I'm pleased for you and your family.
And I'm prepared to go for growth so the part of the world's population that isn't all right can enjoy at least a bit of your lifestyle. And I think that decency AND the interests of mankind are on my side.
You and your sort should be run out of town on a rail.