I also submit that Global warming / Climate Change has been ruined by the alarmists overstating there case rather than presenting clear and accurate statistics and claims.
There is enough blame to go around all sides of the political debate. But the science was always clear. The NAS showed that there was scientific consensus in 1979, and the public was on board, until Luntz, and some ex-tobacco propagandists got at it in the mid 1990s. Their actions are a matter of public record, but for some reason most people aren't interested in the actual history, except for some historians. And the political manipulation continues. Part of that is to always accuse the other guy of exactly what you are doing.
The article in question is really just a sly way of arguing that climate change deniers' brains are deficient, compared to readers whose superior brains have recognized the evidence for climate change.
The first rule of crankery is to generate thoughts to defend said crankery.
If you think something is all one way or the other, then that should raise a red flag that you are deluding yourself.
Forcing someone to act in violation of their personal convictions just because YOU think you are right is intolerance.
You may be right. I'm curious: what would you say to those people who were denied marriage licenses because one partner was white and the other black?
The notion of "what is okay" and "what is not okay" is far more powerful than laws. So the world is getting smaller, and activists are telling people that gay is okay. That's just the world live in. Objectively speaking, teh gay is mostly biologically based. I'd be surprised with disgust and prudishness are not mostly biologically based as well. If it is a question of weighing one person's disgust against another person's life and happiness, I'll choose the later any day.
In the sciences, we are now uniquely priviledged to sit side by side with the giants on whose shoulders we stand. -- Gerald Holton