Our data shows substantial support for a cognitive theory known as ‘motivated reasoning,’ which suggests that rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe. In fact, for the most part people completely ignore contrary information. - Professor Steven Hoffman

"The study addresses what it refers to as a 'serious challenge to democratic theory and practice that results when citizens with incorrect information cannot form appropriate preferences or evaluate the preferences of others.'"

"They want[] to believe because it help[s] them make sense of a current reality."

Al Gore and his cronies would have you believe that the "science is settled" and that anyone questioning this is akin to a flat-earther or holocaust denier.

BUT Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit, says:

"...scientists ... say the debate is over.... I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well."

But wait - it gets better. Other quotables:
"the warming rates for all [1860-1880], [1910-1940], [1975-1998], [1975-2009] periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other."
{note: remember that you've been told that all warming from 1950 has been man-made}

"Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
A:Yes.."
{note: remember that you've been told that you caused Katrina (or God did, depends on if you're listening to Al Gore or Pat Robertson)}

"Q: ...from January 2002 to the present there has been ... global cooling?
A: ...The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade)..."
{note: but wait its not statistically significant}

"Q:How much faith do you have - and should we have - in the Yamal tree ring data from Siberia? Should we trust the science behind the palaeoclimate record?
A:First, we would all accept that palaeoclimatic data are considerably less certain than the instrumental data. However, we must use what data are available in order to look at the last 1,000 years. I believe that our current interpretation of the Yamal tree-ring data in Siberia is sound."

then

"Q:You also mentioned "hiding the decline" (in temperatures). Why did you say these things?
A:... it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 ... were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were. This 'divergence' is well known in the tree-ring literature"

but wait... we trust tree rings for temperature data or not!?

From CanadaFreePress.com:

Carbon Market Collapse Brings Gore Out of Hiding

"Gore personifies hypocrisy from his massive carbon footprint while telling others to live green, to the amount of money made from the carbon credit market."

NOTE: I disagree with some of the assumptions and assertions of this article so verify before belief (IE that heavy snowfall this year somehow proves global warming doesn't exist. Weather from any short period of time means nothing in global trends just like the idiots that say recent hurricanes are caused by global warming instead of random or periodic weather patterns)

From LewRockwell.com:

Why America Should Apologize

 Excerpt:

In an interview last week about his new book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, Mitt Romney was asked what he meant when saying that America need not apologize. He responded as follows:

'While we've made some mistakes...'