They are similar in that there are conspiracy theorists in both sections though the ones in the politics section are just a little bit more abrasive and trollish than the ones here believe it or not. In the politics section, for the most part, both sides are ignorant of science while in here there is a little bit of acknowledgement of science in every post even when people completely distance themselves from any form of science such as Sagebrush and Maxx.

GW is a scientific farse. Politics is real. And Y!A Is in the tank for Al Gore's plan. Just ask Julius at Y!A command center, he is a die hard greenie and doesn't know the difference between a question and an answer.

Politics and science should be completely separated, there is dogma in both, people who support a political party no matter what, are dogmatic and narrow minded and their opinions don't count, because they are obviously not thinkers.

Same with science there are people who are unable to consider new science theories and evidence, if it clashes with what they previously learned and believe.

Certainly, science can inform political decision-making. That means it has be very accurate about what is known and not known and what the uncertainties are.

Also, science has to have integrity to be able to inform objectively without regard for the possible political options. This is where I see climate science as failing for a large part.

I don't know about the Y!A boards, but:

All leftists openly demand "science" be DRIVEN BY politicians.

yes ,a lot when one side is paying for it . you are getting better at asking your questions ,well played .

Is there a difference?

Does politics involve science?

What has already been proven true, or false, in politics?

Is it more than, or less than, what's been demonstrated in global warming?