The spin, myths, unfounded nonsense, doublespeak and logical fallacies are now officially off the charts...
This is just like talking about religion with those believing in imaginary stuff wholeheartedly and don't want or need any valid evidence at all, while ignoring all the opposing evidence and employing as many logical fallacies as possible to maintain their beliefs.
Just like I don't spend time looking for Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, Osiris or Jesus, I've shifted my focus onto finding out why otherwise smart people, such as Shep, cxorcist, Traf and others, so easily reject science that doesn't fit their received opinions - which, like religion, are largely based on the accident of birth (nationality/religion/parents/location) rather than the actual facts of science.
When there is a genuine scientific consensus about an issue, and no valid scientific controversy, why do people simultaneously (a) say they believe in science and (b) continue to disagree about the facts? It turns out that both sides of the argument do the same thing most of the time (basically, confirmation bias) but that is only about their personal opinions: The scientific facts are still true (and always improving and evolving). Even Charles Darwin, for religious reasons, tried as hard as humanly possible to find an alternative explanation for all the evidence of evolution that he collected for so many years all around the world, but there was and still is only one valid, observable, verifiable, non-supernatural explanation. And, there is no valid scientific controversy about this either.
Meanwhile, I'm going to rely on pilots to fly the airplanes and climate scientists to determine what's going on with the planet.
Further reading about how personalities work? Liked this explanation, from Why Smart People Deny Climate Change:
http://bigthink.com/Mind-Matters/why...climate-change
"Americans tend to clump into two groups on this measure, one hierarchical-individualistic (let people alone and respect authority) and the other egalitarian-communitarian (reduce inequality and look out for the good of society). And it turned out that this measure of value was a much stronger predictor of concern about global warming than was scientific literacy or reasoning skill. Egalitarian-communalists were far more worried about global warming, and a better score on the science competence tests in their group correlated with slightly greater concern. But among the hierarchical-individualists, there was a stronger link between scientific literacy and less concern. That was what was responsible for the overall group result. (Hierachical-individualists were also a great deal less concerned about nuclear power than were egalitarian-communalists.)
Now, these results are a problem for the Enlightenment-era, rationalist model of politics, in which people weigh arguments according to standards of logic and evidence. In real life, people generally do that only when they have to—when, for example, it's required by their jobs.
For those who have to deal with it professionally, after all, climate change isn't in dispute. Agriculture experts, epidemiologists, disaster preparedness teams, civil engineers, military planners and the like can no more deny the state of the climate than an astronaut could believe in a Flat Earth."