Is there a tipping-point in self-inflicted stupidity that the US government cannot survive?

Interesting links, thanks.

My answer is yes, but probably not due to denial of climate science.

I think the "tipping point" for American democracy is quite some ways off. It would happen where the self-correcting checks and balances of the system bequeathed by the Constitution's framers break down. And they look likely to hold up longer than a lot of other things. A relatively diverse and independent judiciary and press, for example, are difficult to do away with, without disrupting the federal / state / local division of powers, and amending the Constitution takes 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the State legislatures. The two parties may both be stupid, but they do complete, which acts as a rough check on unbridled political idiocy.

Climate change is a slow and very long-lasting problem, with potential very severe very long term consequences but democratic government can survive it.

I also disagree with this:

"Deniers form their political opinions and choices on emotionally-based beliefs that are unaffected by information, knowledge, evidence, education, logic, or reason."

It depends on whether the deniers in question are deliberately spreading false information. In most cases involving active denial, they are, and the pro-active anti-science campaigners ARE affected by the latest information on which logical tricks and deceits seem popular or effective. In some copy-cat instances, common here, that is the main thing which affects their utterances.

Based on recent patterns, this answer has a less than 50% chance of surviving vaporization.

Does anybody deny the sun will rise in the east and set in the west. Does anybody deny the the world is warming when for the second year in a row the the East coast if the USA is getting hit by the worst snow and cold in over 50 years. The term deniers is an other way of saying. "I can not prove what I believe but you should accept what I believe my belief is right though i have no proof".......Deniers= is political correctness

Here are a few more links you might find interesting and relevant:

http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/04/11/liberal-co...

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-s...

And I think part of the right approach to the problems discussed in your first link is... baby steps. Don't challenge every single thing that the Other believes, just go after one specific thing that is fairly low-hanging fruit. Get them to admit, for example, that CO2 actually has *some* effect on the temperature of the planet. Alternately, look for solutions to the problem that don't threaten their group identity. For example, while many "skeptics" oppose wind and solar power, what about nuclear?

The more you can say "I agree with you about this, this, and this", the more likely people are to listen to you when you say "but I think you're wrong about that."

Yes, there may be. It's quite clear that many people believe things without looking objectively at them Some of these people are ostensibly bright, but blinded by their beliefs as in the Kahan et al study. I had an exchange recently with a famous engineer that has used his celebrity to come out against global warming. I tried to point out to him that his presentation on the subject was factually incorrect in several aspects. He was not interested in knowing that--he just accused me of being in league with dishonest scientists, and brought up a whole bunch of other stuff while not correcting his errors. In my exchange with him, I said absolutely nothing of a political nature, and didn't address anything that was subjective. It's as if I'd told him that his presentation had the capital of Argentina wrong, and he lashed out at me about my politics (of which he knew nothing). I don't know how you can have a rational dialogue with someone whose politics have subjugated their reasoning powers.

About the same time, I had an exchange with another person that runs a conservative blog and who has self-published a couple of books on global warming. The books are rife with errors. This person was supposedly a chemistry major in college, so when I did simple calculations, I thought that he would be able to follow them. He not only couldn't follow them, he kept making up more scientific nonsense as well as attacking my character. At one time he may have had the ability to do simple chemical calculations, but either age or politics has completely fried his brain. He actually has many followers who rave about his ability to make the scientific arguments "clear", apparently without understanding (or at least caring) that his arguments are all wrong.

Finally, as a result of the exchange with the engineer I mentioned at the beginning, I received an email from Christopher Monckton asking for more details of what I was saying (the engineer had copied him). I have to admit that I was impressed by the quality of the correspondence and the genuine interest that Monckton seemed to express in the subject.

Anyway, with the great majority of these people it is of little use trying to persuade or reason with them. Becoming politically obsessed apparently can destroy a person's ability to reason just as effectively as taking drugs or suffering a brain injury. I'm hoping that their numbers are on the decrease, but it's worrisome that such people tend to have larger families.

Yes, there is. The Hippy/Alarmists driving this criminally wasteful scam called Catastrophic, Man- made, Global Warming are teetering Industrialized countries on the brink of financial failure. They need to admit to their immoral CAGW cause and actually try contributing to society.

I know warmers are not very bright. But you do realize you have just engaged in an ad hominem attack?

And you wonder why we don't believe anything you say? Your logic leaves much to be desired.