[Moneyguy1]

After reading multiple posts, it occured to me that different questions seem to take variable "proofs" to be defended.

Therefore:

Why is the amount of proof that global warming exists, for example, different than the amount of proof needed to defend foreign policy?

Why can one subject evoke denial and ridicule while another is staunchly defended?

How can one defend, without question, a specific political agenda without first understanding the big picture?

How can one say: "Not enough proof" on (a) and say "It's perfectly obvious" on (b)?

Just some questions based on observation.