• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Neil DeGrasse Tyson Says Left Is Just as Guilty of Anti-Science as Right

Last edited:
roughdraft274 said:
Where did you get this from? He's a very smart guy, and I like him very much. I also think it's very important to point out idiocy whether it's creationism or hatred of GMO's or vaccines. But why do you try to put it as if leftwingers expect him to never criticize them?

My best guess is that your reason behind this thead is the same as all of your others. You're very upset that conservatives are generally deemed as "stupid" and you want to stick it to those stupid leftwingers and show them that they are even "stupider".
Click to expand...

Well, yeah.
 
Mithrae said:
I wonder, are any of these examples (anti-vaccers, alternative medicine and opposition to GMOs) part of the public ideology of major left-wing parties at a national level in the US or worldwide, as ignorant 'scepticism' of climate science is for the right?

Not quite the same thing, if they're not :lol:
Click to expand...

No, skepticism of climate science isn't part of the ideology of right wingers, either. Unless you want to accept the idea the right wingers are more devoted to the truth, of course.

But then right wingers always bridle at the idea of expending tremendous resources trying to correct "problem" with policies that would not be of any significant benefit.
 
LowDown said:
No, skepticism of climate science isn't part of the ideology of right wingers, either.
Click to expand...

True, it would be more accurate to say that outright denial of any problems associated with free market capitalism - and more particularly, opposition to any consequent regulations on it - are hallmarks of a very prevalent but not universal right wing ideology. But many folk express their views only in terms of 'scepticism' of the scientific consensus and/or don't like the term denial, so I took the more polite road there.

Maybe I should have just mirrored your OP instead, and accused the right of "anti-science bullcrap"?

And as I've noted, that tendency is or in the past decade has been prominently expressed in the major national right wing parties of the USA, Australia and elsewhere, unlike Tyson's examples from the left. Anti-scientific attitudes are often a cause for concern, of course, but considerably moreso when they reach that level of prominence.
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
No. It's a study. Add it to the mix, and it helps define the lower bound.

If you're into later studies, it seems like you would trumpet the Marvel et al paper from Nature in 2015, showing ECS of 3 is likely.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151218161441.htm

http://www.nature.com/articles/doi:...oe0leuv0Yy-CW-4aEmUZ7cX5BqhYQyQZnLAWNeMXrcINb
Click to expand...
You clearly did not read your own citation!
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncli...MXrcINb&tracking_referrer=www.realclimate.org
We apply the same reasoning to estimates of ECS. Using an estimate 4 of the
rate of recent heat uptake 1Q = 0.65± 0.27 W m−2,
we find, assuming all equilibrium efficacies are unity, a best estimate
of ECS = 2.0◦C, comparable to the previous result 4 of 1.9◦C.
However, as with TCR , account ing for differences in equilibrium
forcing efficacy revises the estimate upwards; our new best estimate
(using efficacies derived from the iRF) is 2.6◦C (Fig. 2a).
If efficacies are instead calculated from the ERF,
the best estimate of ECS is 3.0◦C (Fig. 2b)
Click to expand...
When they apply the original methodology they got a ECS of 2.0 °C up from 1.9 °C,
But they decided to add a new factor in, (ERF)effective radiative forcing, that will bring the ECS back up to 3°C.
So they get to 3°C, by adding in some additional factor.
It sure sounds like amplified feedback by another name.
 
longview said:
You clearly did not read your own citation!
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncli...MXrcINb&tracking_referrer=www.realclimate.org

When they apply the original methodology they got a ECS of 2.0 °C up from 1.9 °C,
But they decided to add a new factor in, (ERF)effective radiative forcing, that will bring the ECS back up to 3°C.
So they get to 3°C, by adding in some additional factor.
It sure sounds like amplified feedback by another name.
Click to expand...

Ummm....sounds like refining estimates to me.

But I'm not arguing the science, since I'm not a climate scientist, and I definitely know you're not one either.

My point is you cherry picked an article because you liked the conclusion, and pretended it was 'newer', but reject the even newer one because you don't like the conclusions.
 
Threegoofs said:
Ummm....sounds like refining estimates to me.

But I'm not arguing the science, since I'm not a climate scientist, and I definitely know you're not one either.

My point is you cherry picked an article because you liked the conclusion, and pretended it was 'newer', but reject the even newer one because you don't like the conclusions.
Click to expand...
The article was from many of the lead authors of AR5, because AR5 left off a best estimate for ECS,
We can only assume they left it off, because they did not like the number.
Now you show a new paper that admits to the lower ECS range using the old criteria,
but wait... if they add in a additional new criteria they can get the ECS range back up to the scary level!
The more we learn about clouds, the lower the ECS seems to get.
In 2006 S. Kato had a good paper showing how the increase in Albedo from an increase in cloud cover,
overwhelmed the loss of Albedo from the loss of snow cover.
http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/ceres/pub/journals/Kato.etal.GRL.06.pdf
 
longview said:
The article was from many of the lead authors of AR5, because AR5 left off a best estimate for ECS,
We can only assume they left it off, because they did not like the number.
Now you show a new paper that admits to the lower ECS range using the old criteria,
but wait... if they add in a additional new criteria they can get the ECS range back up to the scary level!
The more we learn about clouds, the lower the ECS seems to get.
In 2006 S. Kato had a good paper showing how the increase in Albedo from an increase in cloud cover,
overwhelmed the loss of Albedo from the loss of snow cover.
http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/ceres/pub/journals/Kato.etal.GRL.06.pdf
Click to expand...

Actually, according to Gavin Schmidt of NASA, the paper helped define the lower range of the AR5 estimates.

RealClimate » Blog Archive » Marvel et al (2015) Part 1: Reconciling estimates of climate sensitivity

So I guess your conspiracy theory is proven wrong, yet again.

My scientific training wasn't in earth science, but I learned enough to spot pretenders, amateurs and rubes in all fields.

And you are Exhibit A for the dunning Kruger effect.
 
Threegoofs said:
Actually, according to Gavin Schmidt of NASA, the paper helped define the lower range of the AR5 estimates.

RealClimate » Blog Archive » Marvel et al (2015) Part 1: Reconciling estimates of climate sensitivity

So I guess your conspiracy theory is proven wrong, yet again.

My scientific training wasn't in earth science, but I learned enough to spot pretenders, amateurs and rubes in all fields.

And you are Exhibit A for the dunning Kruger effect.
Click to expand...
Your own cited paper is pointing to a lower ECS, I am not sure why you continue to deny it.
Perhaps because it does not fit in with your dogma.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Where did you get this from? He's a very smart guy, and I like him very much. I also think it's very important to point out idiocy whether it's creationism or hatred of GMO's or vaccines. But why do you try to put it as if leftwingers expect him to never criticize them?

My best guess is that your reason behind this thead is the same as all of your others. You're very upset that conservatives are generally deemed as "stupid" and you want to stick it to those stupid leftwingers and show them that they are even "stupider".
Click to expand...

They aren't generally assumed to be stupid, only among the arrogant left are conservatives considered stupid.
 
Anti-Vaccination and Anti-GMO stances tend to come from the left; Anti-AGW, Anti-Evolution stances tend to come from the right.



The OP uses the word "just as" but doesn't attempt to quantify the amount of people actually holding these stances. I "wonder" why....
 
Mithrae said:
True, it would be more accurate to say that outright denial of any problems associated with free market capitalism - and more particularly, opposition to any consequent regulations on it - are hallmarks of a very prevalent but not universal right wing ideology. But many folk express their views only in terms of 'scepticism' of the scientific consensus and/or don't like the term denial, so I took the more polite road there.

Maybe I should have just mirrored your OP instead, and accused the right of "anti-science bullcrap"?

And as I've noted, that tendency is or in the past decade has been prominently expressed in the major national right wing parties of the USA, Australia and elsewhere, unlike Tyson's examples from the left. Anti-scientific attitudes are often a cause for concern, of course, but considerably moreso when they reach that level of prominence.
Click to expand...

Your post reads like a caricature. Never has the right denied the need for some regulation of the market. There is just concern that the current regulatory burden is excessive and counterproductive. Never has the right said that there are no problems in the free market and capitalism. It seems to me, though, that the antics of the EPA and the IRS show that oversight of the executive branch isn't what it should be, and we don't have enough acknowledgment from left wingers of that.

No one has died of global warming per say, but plenty of people have died by following anti-vaxer ideology. Such beliefs have profound implications for public health and encourage behavior that puts all of us at risk. One need only go shopping at Whole Foods to confirm that many on the left wing are imbued with silly beliefs about food, drink, and a host of other things. Unlike the left, right wingers have never claimed to be the only kids on the block who pay attention to science or claim to be guided only by science, but people on the left frequently make that sort of false claim.
 
Last edited:
Mr Person said:
Anti-Vaccination and Anti-GMO stances tend to come from the left; Anti-AGW, Anti-Evolution stances tend to come from the right.



The OP uses the word "just as" but doesn't attempt to quantify the amount of people actually holding these stances. I "wonder" why....
Click to expand...

There are enough anti-science progressives to make Whole Foods a market leader, anyway. Over 9000 people have died due to anti-vaxxer nonsense, according to one group.

One need not wonder why there isn't any attention being directed at this problem. Many of the people in the mainstream media are proponents of this nonsense.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Nope. It's not just left wingers thinking that.

Bobby Jindal: GOP needs to 'stop being the stupid party' | TheHill

I'm not saying that all conservatives are stupid or anything like it, but is there a general perception that conservative/republicans are the lesser informed/lesser educated group? You better believe it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but there's no evidence that's true. Very much the opposite, in fact.

Sure, people tell us Democrats and liberals are smarter than conservatives all the time. That's because they are Democrats. All the sources of that sort of information, the news media and academe, are dominated by liberals and liberals are highly biased in their own favor. They are also desperately in need of reassurance, apparently, because there's a new study reported every month or so that purports to prove that liberals are smarter. They also have studies that show that conservative are mentally ill, have personality disorders and paranoia, etc. I've stopped debunking these papers. All of them I've seen have serious problems, but liberals believe them anyway.

Conservatives don't generally bother with this sort of thing; conservatives already know in their heart of hearts that they are flawed in a number of ways, as are we all. I used to care about it until I realized that liberal superiority is just something liberals have to believe in. Go kick a liberal in the shins, you do about as much good that way as trying to dislodge them from their belief in liberal superiority.
 
LowDown said:
Sorry, but there's no evidence that's true. Very much the opposite, in fact.

Sure, people tell us Democrats and liberals are smarter than conservatives all the time. That's because they are Democrats.
Click to expand...

Well, in counterpoint, we do have your posts here.

So you can't say we have *no* evidence!
 
LowDown said:
Sorry, but there's no evidence that's true. Very much the opposite, in fact.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'm going to try to explain this but I don't have high hopes.

I said that there is a "general perception that conservative/republicans are the lesser informed/lesser educated". I am talking about a perception, not that they actually are indeed less educated or intelligent.

So do you understand that when I say "there is a general perception", I'm not saying it's true, but just that it is a sort of well known stereotype.

So when you think you are proving me wrong by trying to show that conservatives are more intelligent, you are in fact just changing the subject entirely. You aren't proving me wrong. You're just completely ignoring the entire substance of what was said.

So, LowDown, do you understand the difference between "there is a general perception of X" and "X is true / the general perception of X is true"?
 
LowDown said:
There are enough anti-science progressives to make Whole Foods a market leader, anyway. Over 9000 people have died due to anti-vaxxer nonsense, according to one grouphttp://www.antivaccinebodycount.com/.

One need not wonder why there isn't any attention being directed at this problem. Many of the people in the mainstream media are proponents of this nonsense.
Click to expand...

Very good point. One would have to be an absolute idiot to be anti-vaccine, correct? :)
 
roughdraft274 said:
Where did you get this from? He's a very smart guy, and I like him very much. I also think it's very important to point out idiocy whether it's creationism or hatred of GMO's or vaccines. But why do you try to put it as if leftwingers expect him to never criticize them?

My best guess is that your reason behind this thead is the same as all of your others. You're very upset that conservatives are generally deemed as "stupid" and you want to stick it to those stupid leftwingers and show them that they are even "stupider".
Click to expand...

Because all you have to do is browse this forum to see left wing jackasses who pretend they believe in science, and then bitch about the things listed OR pretend right wing science denial is the only extant and threatening science.

Personally? I would rather have anti evolution jackasses than anti vaccines jackasses. At least one isn't putting children at risk for physical health. So please spare us the "conservatives are cry babies" bull**** routine. There are so many safe space liberal crybabies out there who believe in eating organic dirt vegan only BS for us to not be able to deem left wingers as giant stupid ******s.
 
blackjack50 said:
Because all you have to do is browse this forum to see left wing jackasses who pretend they believe in science, and then bitch about the things listed OR pretend right wing science denial is the only extant and threatening science.

Personally? I would rather have anti evolution jackasses than anti vaccines jackasses. At least one isn't putting children at risk for physical health. So please spare us the "conservatives are cry babies" bull**** routine. There are so many safe space liberal crybabies out there who believe in eating organic dirt vegan only BS for us to not be able to deem left wingers as giant stupid ******s.
Click to expand...

Agreed, anti-evolution is probably not as dangerous as anti-vaccine ideas when it comes to parenting. But this anti-vaccine stuff isn't as "let wing" as you are letting on. The Republican nominee has repeatedly stated that vaccines cause autism, and along with that, there is a huge movement in the conservative wing against mandating vaccines. Rick Perry got a lot of **** when he mandated HPV vaccine in Texas and even went on to claim it was a mistake even though it undoubtedly saved lives. Is it more left wing? Probably. But is it as left wing as anti evolution is right wing? Nope, not by a long shot.

And it's not a routine. Conservatives in general are the biggest bunch of whiny ****s in this country.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Agreed, anti-evolution is probably not as dangerous as anti-vaccine ideas when it comes to parenting. But this anti-vaccine stuff isn't as "let wing" as you are letting on. The Republican nominee has repeatedly stated that vaccines cause autism, and along with that, there is a huge movement in the conservative wing against mandating vaccines. Rick Perry got a lot of **** when he mandated HPV vaccine in Texas and even went on to claim it was a mistake even though it undoubtedly saved lives. Is it more left wing? Probably. But is it as left wing as anti evolution is right wing? Nope, not by a long shot.
Click to expand...

As you stated: it is a left wing movement and it IS dangerous. And all the other stuff listed in the OP? Hm? As far as the anti vaccine right? Are you talking about the silly libertarians? The middle rights? And trump? Not a real republican. Didn't he vote for Hilary?

Btw

The most common anti evolution folks I know tend to be AME church goers who are democrat voters. I wonder how that makes you feel?

And it's not a routine. Conservatives in general are the biggest bunch of whiny ****s in this country.
Click to expand...

Who is pushing for safe spaces? Good lord, do you not pay attention to all the crap about "unfair treatment?"

https://youtu.be/RyerIDAU3oc

Why don't you just browse the "white privilege" topics here and find out how often whites "conservatives/republican/businesses" are blamed for problems created by the problems created by ones own lack of ability or pure laziness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom