I wrote that from a policy standpoint, Pat Robertson's conversion is huge. Policies that garner broad support have the best chance of getting adopted, and Pat Roberston brings real diversity into the AGW tent that wasn't there before. In particular, he brings a strong conservative presence that has been missing from the pro-action constituency for at least a decade.
A reader responded:
I don't disagree ... about Pat bringing along a political clout, but really, would you or your distinguished scientists like to stand on the same podium and shake hands or be involved with someone that ridiculous and obviously unhinged? If you welcome him you endorse him, and that is not something a real scientist would do, only a political one.I reject this argument. While I am gratified that Pat R. acknowledges the strong scientific, economic, and moral case that exists for action on AGW, which I have been arguing for a few years, his endorsement of my position does not mean that I endorse anything else he says. [Ronald Reagan made basically this exact argument when someone odious endorsed him for President --- if anyone has the exact quote, please put it in the comments section.]