They are taught to be followers. They don't have enough common sense to think for themselves. Also, picture this: I am a student who has just taken out a loan for $15,000 to attend college. If I answer this communistic professor's question truthfully (against GW) I will flunk. So I will have to lie in order to get my degree. Do I lie or waste $15,000?

They have the same mentality of that of a school child after being caught stealing or cheating. They tell their mother, "Well everyone else does it!" And that to them is a legitimate excuse. My parents never let me get by with that, but apparently we have a generation of those whose parents did.

Then there are those who are agenda driven. Their goal is to scare everyone and sway them to communism or socialism.

So there are three classes of greenie:

The evil deliberate persuaders. These know what the truth is, but they keep on seeking for personal and political gain.

The followers. These can't think for themselves and will follow any smooth talking preacher or politician, like Al Gore, who tickles their ears. Usually this kind get in too deep and will never admit they are wrong.

Then the hard core stupid.

The majority of scientists do not say it is true but you are right that it would be wrong to believe just because the majority of scientists said so.

It wasn't that long ago that eggs were good for you, then bad, then good, then bad and I don't remember where it ended but I didn't pay attention anyway.

It wasn't that long ago that in order to loose weight you needed to eat carbs

It wasn't that long ago that .... well I could write a long list of things that the majority of scientists believed that were wrong. Pretty much most things that they believed in the past were overturned as new discoveries were made.

Most scientists believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas and our emissions have probably had an effect on the climate. Beyond that, I seriously doubt most scientists believe anything about CO2 emissions but scientists are human and are therefore prone to belief.

Few people, including such YA members as Madd Maxx and Sagebrush have an understanding of science good enough to actually take a critical look at what they say. Besides, if you came down with a case of ebola, who would you prefer to prescribe your treatment? Joe in the pool hall or a CDC expert who has actually studied ebola.

Of course, everyone with sufficient intelligence should actually look at the evidence. Global warming is happening

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...

And we are causing it

http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...

The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2013 and 2012.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...

And environmentalists don't believe the experts about GMO's, Nuclear Power, and Fracking because they had already staked their reputations on such things being bad before most people were aware of global warming.

You are suggesting that some people don't believe in nuclear power. There is no doubt it exists, there is just the fear about its safety.

btw, I'm believe in global warming, pro nuclear power, pro fracking and neutral on GMOs

Random,

At Fukishima, it required the 5th largest earthquake on record, followed by a tsunami, to bring down a 30 year old plant, that was still only brought down due to a known problem of placement of secandary systems. Nuclear power makes up 19% of the US electrical power, and there have been 0 deaths in the US from it. ZERO! That is a claim that not even wind power can make.

If you are comparing the US to the USSR and Chernobyl, you should know that their quality control processes were atrocious.

Edit:

Preventable??? You are talking about preventing something that simply cannot occur in most of the US. Most of the US will never see a tsunami hit.

Well, each of those are separate issues, and they each have their own dynamics. However, I do agree with you that there is a disconnect in that some people believe the preponderance of scientific evidence regarding climate change, yet do not believe in things like vaccines, or GMOs, where there is an equal preponderance of evidence indicating their safety. Of course, each of them have their detractors, but if you're going to go by the majority of scientists, it doesn't seem consistent to agree sometimes and not other times.

Regarding Nuclear Power, I think there are actually legitimate concerns about safety there. As amania said, I don't think any rational people are doubting it's existence, but one need only look at Fukushima or Chernobyl to have legitimate concerns. Of course there can be things done to mitigate those concerns but I don't think people are irrational to be opposed to it. Fracking has a similar story. Having seen the effects of natural-gas fracking in PA, I think there are unquestionably negative impacts created by it. It can be argued that the benefits outweigh the costs, a view which I more-or-less share, but I think there are legitimate concerns opponents raise.

That brings me to Your viewpoints. I've seen in other posts that you do not believe in global warming. Yet apparently you DO "believe in" or accept the safety of, GMOs, nuclear power, and fracking. How do you resolve your inconsistency in believing some scientific consensus opinions and not others?

Believers in the Flat Earth, the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax, Abiotic Oil, The Laffler Curve, The Rapture, The Tooth Fairy, and the decades-long conspiracy of hundreds of Nobel Prize winning scientists to use so-called Global Warming to take over the world with jackbooted black helicopters, don't have time for Marxist Environmentalist Shape Shifter Myths such "truth." Everything is an illusion projected from the Hollow Moon.