Today, however, it is politically effective, and socially acceptable, to deny scientific fact. Narrowly defined, “creationism” was a minor current in American thinking for much of the 20th century. But in the years since I was a student, a well-funded effort has skillfully rebranded that ideology as “creation science” and pushed it into classrooms across the country. Though transparently unscientific, denying evolution has become a litmus test for some conservative politicians, even at the highest levels.

age of mental consent?

Fewer people believe climate change is happening now than 25 years ago. 

How is that possible?

How is this possible.  It can only occur in a society that believes in science by "consensus".  When a scientist says that the science on a subject is closed, he is no longer a scientist but an evangelist for some position or other..

This is crazy:

In 1989, when “climate change” had just entered the public lexicon, 63 percent of Americans understood it was a problem. Almost 25 years later, that proportion is actually a bit lower, at 58 percent.

Is it that people don't thing climate change exists?

Or that they don't think it's a problem?

i do not know.  my facebook feed dislikes this article though...

"This article, and the line of thinking it represents is at approximately base camp 2 on Mount Arrogance. The author incorrectly thinks he has a corner on the fact and scientific method market. Divisive, dismissive rhetoric 1, constructive debate 0. Article fail." and

" Al Gore and this quote are why I feel a lot of people don't trust science like they used to " This never implied turning science into a religion or demanding slavish acceptance of this year’s hot research trends." I think a lot of scientists would like people to abandon religion because it does not make sense to them. As I have aged I have grown to understand what "Faith" means. It is not necessarily religious, it just means to me that EVERYTHING must not be explained. I have faith that Jared Sperli will continue to give me things to think about......but he will not demand I comply with his thinking. Thank you."

Climate Change is a "big grey rhino" (credit term to Michele Wucker of the World Policy Institute) charging right at us. In general it is viewed as SEP about which an individual can do little. So the hope is that someone--most likely the scientists--will come up with a solution. In the meantime find the March 2013 issue of "Oil" magazine about "the Arctic game." The countries close to the arctic are excited about polar ice melting (!!?) as it will make it easier for them to explore and drill for the hydrocarbons up there. This is a classic Jared Diamond "Collapse..." scenario. Personal denial or simply ignoring the dilemma makes current life a little easier in a time when life in general is full of a daily assault of more immediate personal and global problems. My daily thought about Climate Change just adds to the list of more direct problems one has to deal with in today's world. I've almost given up on trying to have an impact or even making an observation. 

I understand that there are massive amounts of methane being released in the arctic due to GW,  Seems that efforts to capture and use it would be profitable. We need cost effective solutions to Energy, not low efficiency power generation solutions such as solar and wind.

We will be drilling for hydrocarbons and using them until there aren't any more. That will be a long time. However long it takes, the CO2 accumulation will ultimately produce the worst case outcomes in most of the predictions.  Methane release adds to the problem as the planet warms.  I think Carbon Capture (and Sequestration) may be the only hope for slowing down the gas accumulations in the atmosphere. The technologies are there. But it takes the energy industry to further develop and implement. Maybe it also takes an explicit price on Carbon. Doesn't mean we should stop the alternative energy development efforts.