Does this say it all about alarmist elites?

Look @ the body types, Lakoff hasn't missed a Happy meal in years.

Yes, both the gentlemen quoted are wrong.

"Michaels said that the idea that people who don't buy into global warming should be discounted because they are somehow incapable of seeing the facts doesn't fit with the American ideal of individual liberty."

So individual liberty means being able to choose which facts you like? That's just as loopy as thinking that climate science is 99.999% settled. There is still plenty to learn. But the best minds in the business agree that there is over 90% confidence that the currently observed changes in climate are significantly anthropogenically driven and highly like to have more very seriously negative effects than positive ones. Those who reject this finding either need to publish their reasons in respected peer-review journals or point to others who are doing so. Simply rejecting findings because they are inconvenient or don't suit one's worldview is not an expression of liberty, just a basic disconnection from reality.

Yes, he has stereotyped people by their political views and has failed to see the individual that each person is. A person's political views does not dictate on how they view rational thought. Two people with identical political agendas may see global warming in totally different ways.

All this research shows is that if you become a professor, people will often believe what you tell them regardless of evidence that they can see with their own eyes. Surely you must know people of similar political stances that can't agree on the simplest of things. Try it. Do a poll asking if they believe in human caused global warming and which political camp they would put themselves in, chances are you will get a very mixed bag response (but I could be wrong)

He is has a opinion of which I disagree, I find myself somewhat agreeing with Pegminer on this question though not in its entirety.

Has far as Dana goes his anwer speaks to who he is and it is not what he claims to be.

I think this guy goes a bit too far, but there certainly are some deniers that function in this fashion. To live in denial of facts you have to have certain defense mechanisms that prevent reason from seeping into the brain. Otherwise, how could people that haven't studied physics, and haven't studied climate science, and that are math-impaired generally convince themselves that they know more than the vast majority of climate scientists in the world? Obviously they have no real basis for their beliefs, and there must be things operating in their brain that prevent them from understanding that they have no basis for their beliefs.

Of course, it's not just conservatives and not just about AGW, people in general can have mental blocks about all sorts of things.

Until a moment ago, I did not realize that Dana was among the elitist condescenders. That will pass as he gains wisdom.

Why are liberals so condescending?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

"Is there anything that can be said after reading this."

Yes, it's a non-issue with regard to climate science.

To be expected from Marxist idiots, and yes, the professor clearly has a cognitive disorder.

The truth hurts, huh Starbuck? Nice article, thanks. Except they gave too much coverage to that scumbag Michaels.