This is what you're fighting:

Adam Karrsen: "Because 90% of scientist are morons who say and do as they are told."

John Honeck: "Rush told me so. And he's smarter then you even while he's stoned on opiates."

Mary: "You sound like you do a lot of wishful thinking in the land of make believe."

Socrates: "Currently climatology is more like the Piltdown Man scientific scandal."

Jim Z: "Why would petroleum companies fund high school dropouts? Who are these dropouts?"

Suppose I tell "You that you need to pay higher taxes and more for energy because that will create a better world for your grandchildren."

OR, I could tell you, "The science community and the gob'mt are pulling a hoax to take your money and give it to the likes of that jetsetter Al Gore."

Which is likely to arouse your ire?

Which is more likely to get you to come out and vote?

Which is more likely to appeal to your baser instincts?

Keep in mind how popular 'reality' shows have become.

What does that say about the intellectual ability of Americans today?

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wire...

One of my "stock" answers seems at least mostly relevant here.

Why do denialists deny AGW?

1. Confirmation bias, and similar brain tricks. Our minds tend to reject "unfriendly" information, however valid; http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/0... discusses the matter at length.

2. Lack of scientific understanding. Climate science is kind of complex, and some aspects of it aren't very intuitive ("How can it be snowing, if there's global warming?" and so on). Some people disbelieve what they don't understand. (there's something of the same problem with evolution)

3. Flat-out lying, or at least trusting a lying source. I suspect at least some people who deny global warming are skewing (or even blatantly faking) information because reality does not match their political biases, and/or because they are trying to protect some income source or the like that could be threatened by action to stop AGW.

As far as your specific question about scientists vs media personalities, I think it's mostly the confirmation bias talking.

How about you use your own brain, how about you research the subject a bit instead of listening to what others tell you, very easy to say these people say this because they receive funding, petroleum dollars or it would inconvenience them, that will get you no closer to the truth.

Instead search for some facts and evidence, or even just look around you and see if you can spot any changes.use your own mind don't be someone elses zombie.

It's not 90% of scientists, its 97% of CLIMATE scientists.

Some people believe what they want to believe.

A cousin of mine died when his parents prayed with the Christian Scientists, instead of seeking medical help. And then his older sister died of the same disease, with prayers, not medicine.

Go figure.

The problem with "global warming" is that the data has been cooked, as admitted in the climategate e-mails. In other words, these "scientists" that you mentioned altered and cherry picked data to show more warm than there really is.

Second, they realized early on that global warming has stopped (they call it a "pause" in global temps for the last 17 years), which is why they changed "global warming" to "climate change". You know, so no matter what the climate does they can blame it on man to promote their agenda.

Unless "patroluem" is abiotic, if you are not very alarmed, as JimZ is, that taxing gasoline (for the past 90 years) means America has been under a Stalinist despotism ever since, then you must be an alarmist.

The problem lies when people want to make an environmental issue a political issue and pundits instead of scientists

Who are these media personalities? Brokaw, Williams, Curic, Leno, Letterman??????? Your questions is missing much. Why would petroleum companies fund high school dropouts? Who are these dropouts? It sounds to me that you simply want to believe regardless of facts and that makes you the perfect alarmist.

Bras,

It is like this man. So like you have these people who like are different from me, man. I can';t like figure out like how they can say stuff that is like different. So the solution came to me in like a vision. They are all like copies of the same person, man. They like all act the same and like talk the same and watch the same shows man. Its trippy I know. But bra.. let me tell you man, it like so revolutionalized the way I think.

Now longer do I try to like understand why they like might like have a different view bra. Instead man, I just like say that they must be watching it on their TV show. It saves me so much time like thinking bra.

Science is not a popularity contest! It's about objective science, ignoring politics and having the guts to go where the science leads. This has not been done in the science community with climate change. The East Anglian scandal brought this to light. Science is about being able to predict outcomes, climate models consistently fail in doing this. There was even record amount of Antarctic ice. This, when only a couple years ago, there were climatologist alarm bells going off that the Antarctic was loosing it's ice and the loss was unstoppable and could not reverse itself.

I have no problem with the concept that man could screw up the world. The honest science has not been given to support that. Currently climatology is more like the Piltdown Man scientific scandal, where anthropologists were so sure what they wanted to believe about the evolution of man was correct, when Piltdown man popped up, they had no problem believing it out of hand. This, when the legitimate Australopithecus was there. It didn't fit the model of what scientists wanted to find and was ignored for 75 years.

When 90+ percent of scientists say global climate change is real, but a handful of patroleum industry funded high school drop out celebrities say it isn't real, is it retarded to go with the celebrity opinion bros

I think you answered your question. That's the meaning of ignorant. Ignorant cons and ignorant libs always just believe what their told by the media. The thing that is funny is that the earth hasn't warmed and many years, and even NASA now admits that the hottest decade recently was the 1930s. I guess when all the emails came out about falsifying the data, some chose to consider that bit of information and others have chosen to disregard it.

Science, facts, and rational thinking DESTROY the childish, insipid beliefs of the lunatic right-wing fringe, so they prefer the chattering of their uneducated, psychotic right-wing propaganda puppet masters.

Like every other question that needs an answer, some questions have no answers. Everyone has their own ideas and not everyone will agree.

And then there is you.