Verified answer

Well..... I don't want to make a hasty generalization, BUT if I had to choose between a "denier/skeptic" and "realist/alarmist", or whatever the terms are, I would say the "side" of the deniers tend to input more political terms in their answers, and I'm basing this on what I've seen in the politics and global warming sections. So, no you aren't the only one who has noticed this, and it seems there are those that agree with you.

"Can this observation be validated once and for all with a large survey of the questions and answers in this site (and possibly other sites as well)?"

I suppose it can, but I'm sure you realize the problems with your informal survey.

OH! Hahahahaaa...this is one of those times where someone-you in this case-are tryng to be politically correct...or objective, or fair or something when the truth in this section of Y/A is as plain as the nose on your face.

People who don't subscribe to the theory of AGW use political terms FAR more than those who do.

It's also quite apparent that people who DO subscribe to the theory of AGW insult the intelligence of those who do not far more often than the reverse.

Man, I am no scientist, but I swear I could come into this category and say the moon is made of limburger cheese and THAT is why AGW stinks to high heaven and some of you folks would actually give the question some credibility by responding...then the next thing you know Glenn Beck would be yapping about it and crying on TV and then-well, you know the rest of the story. In my opinion, validating the observation with some sort of survey isn't really required in this particular instance.

So you have me confused. One the primary responsibilities of any government is to be informed.

http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Worry-Abo...

Why not a splash of liberalism with a twist of science? Or a republican econ-oholic? I simply dislike Mr. Unmentionable as a politician and refrain from reference. Read the pew polls, most Americans are worried about jobs and the economy. Why they are considered (unrealistic) baffles the Heck out of me. Education in general is considered a social and cultural building block.http://frank.mtsu.edu/~jbwallae/1010/lectur04.htm But its far from being the only one. Again the pews will emphasize acceptance concerning AGW from a political affiliated point of view. So asking why politics and science go hand in hand has already been done for you.

The deniers because it's a political question for them. For the scientists and those that understand science Global warming is a scientific fact

it particularly is not basically the fossils, besides the undeniable fact that their stratification. Their are too many strata for a single flood social accumulating. Calling the assessment of the strata a theory gadget does not make it such. The strata were at first analyzed in the context of a worldwide flood which thoroughly did not clarify observations Coining words like "micro-mutation" does now not replace 2 powerful info. life evolves by capacity of way of mutation, which has been desperate. Anatomic based phylogenetic timber are corroborated by not structural genetic ameliorations such as order of genes that one and all factor out extensive-unfold descent. the only secure practices to assertions now not supported by capacity of way of info is to plead that there could be no advert hominem assaults. while you are going to play rapid and loose with the concepts, you would be shown as a liar. waiting for it does not something to regulate the concepts.

Generally people who have a strong opinion either way are on one of the political poles. Global Warming is a very political subject as it has very reputable evidence for both sides that the other sides deny. Its really hard to say who is correct or telling the truth if anyone is. Now these extremists are on both sides and jump to this "Using of Political Terms" on anything the go against or "Deny". I would say equally. If you talk about Global Warming, the right accuses Gore and the left, if you talk about War the left accuses the right or Bush. Other fun subjects with the same observation are abortion, gay rights, unions, fire arms, voter id, social security, etc. The irony is that the extreme right and extreme left is a lot the same.

I joke that the two actually meet and political viewpoints are actually a circle making them the south.

The Right thinks the left is stupid and the left thinks the right is full of morons, the problem is they are both correct.

Those such as yourself who thinks their political beliefs rise to science have no business complaining about those of us who correctly point out that your belief system is not science. It is a belief system that has comes from your leftist views. I realize that you are blinded by your political philosophy and can't see that obvious truth but it is obvious to the rest of us. It isn't a coincidence that I know you are a left winger. I wouldn't know the first thing about you but I know that. Ask yourself, how is that possible. I am not psychic. When you begin to figure that out, maybe you will see how shallow your belief in AGW is.

Peggy pretends to be an expert but is completely uneducated about earth science.

Those such as yourself who think their political beliefs rise to science have no business complaining about those of us who correctly point out that your belief system is not science. It is a belief system that has come from your reactionary theist views. I realize that you are blinded by your political philosophy and can't see that obvious truth, but rest of us see it clear as day. It isn't a coincidence that I think you are either a conservative nutcase or whored out shill. I wouldn't know the first thing about you but I believe that. Ask yourself, how is that possible? I am not psychic. I know this because science is real and politics and religion are human abstractions. When you begin to figure that out, maybe you will see how shallow your belief in science is and how your political philosophy has blinded you to the truth. Welcome to backwards upside down world where fantasy and insults are interchangeable with scientific results – the world of AGW denial.

The geologist thinks he is a climate expert but really just suffers from Dunning-Kruger complex.

I've noticed it. Although, I think there is a fair amount of right-wing bashing from the supporters of AGW, the deniers overwhelmingly rely on politics to defend their position.

The reason for that is pretty simple though, the science doesn't agree with them, therefore all they have to rely on is the (mis)interpretation of the science funneled down through various political, pundit and "news" outlets. In other words, they have only hyperbole.

I really think this argument would be vastly improved if people were able to separate policy from science and argue against what they truly disagree with instead of wasting time demonizing climate scientists as ultra left-wing, communist liars bent on a one world government fueled by excessive taxation.

There are a few scientists with legitimate skepticism over the fundamentals of AGW, but the vast majority accept it. Let's just move on. Fossil fuel sources are *finite* regardless of whether or not AGW is a valid scientific theory, let's move towards alternative energy sources because eventually we won't have a choice. Let's move towards greater efficiency because it's *cheaper*. Let's not pollute the crap out of the planet because we have to live here.

I just don't understand why so many want to get bent out of shape about this.

EDIT - Y!A really needs to change the policy where a certain TU:TD hides the answers. Either that or crack down on multiple account usage.

Those who believe in physics cite scientists.

Those who want the laws of physics to go away stick to the politics and attack liberal politicians because they know nothing about science. Those who deny the physics are almost all conservative, reactionary, uneducated angry old men. The resent everything.