Why do liberals treat people who are skeptical of climate change as being unintelligent?

They're too brainwashed to see there's a fine line between science and religion.

because they don't think anything is natural! like the Medieval Warm Period! were the earth was 2-3 degrees warmer than it currently is today!

it would break their entire belief system!

If your mother was that smart she wouldn't have had you.

You misunderstand. I think you all are morons period........its not just because of what you think about climate change.  

Maybe they judge all skeptics from the ones here on Yahoo:

/dir/index?sid=396545451

But personally, I am not at all skeptical. SOMETHING is changing the climate, and man-made global warming, which IS happening, is a good, logical explanation, universally accepted explanation. The overwhelming majority of scientists endorse it.

I tend to trust the experts.

clearly it is not happeneing as described as zero records are being set , all records are saying wettest since ( date) driest since (date) worst flood since (date) coldest march day since (date) so clearly on the previous dates the same levels were experienced so nothing new is happening, records ( and not very accurate ones ) only started around 1896 which is the blink of an eye in planetary terms

Because most of them are anti-science.  Climate denialism is entirely a case of motivated reasoning.  People don't like the solutions which would be necessary to deal with climate change, so they deny the increasing evidence of it.  From a logical standpoint its also problematic that many of them will argue contradictory sides of the argument.  For example, people will sometimes argue both that climate change isn't happening and that it's happening but wholly natural.  It's clear that most climate denialists aren't rationally looking at the evidence and coming to conclusions.  Instead, they're making whatever arguments they can to stave off climate change solutions which they dislike, but which might be necessary.

Because the global warming / climate change we're seeing in the last 100 or so years is MUCH different from anything measured in the glacial & sea sediment records covering the last 700,000 years.  CO2 is rising 100x faster, and temps 10x faster.

 "How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?"  https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalW...    "As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."

How is today's CO2 increase different?  https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understandin...  "The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago."

Fact is, anthropogenic global warming is accepted by a YUGE segment of the scientific community. Would you accept the consensus opinion of the American Physical Society AND the American Chemical Society? How about the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and at least 15 other national organizations of publishing scientists? See  https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Your point is well taken. The problem is either emotional or Machiavellian. Not necessarily intellectual.

Genius in one subject does not expert in another. Would you go to a plumber to get your teeth fixed?