• 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!

Why do laypersons have such arrogance when denying human-caused climate change?

Surface Detail

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 20, 2016
Messages
3,244
Reaction score
1,232
Location
English Midlands
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
A very good reply to this question by Lee Thé, on Quora:

"One facet of low intelligence is lack of self-assessment ability. Thus it’s not what they don’t know. It’s what they don’t know that they don’t know. Dumb people literally can’t imagine a higher intelligence than their own. Intelligent people can. It’s one of the biggest cleavage lines between being dumb and smart."

"This is evolutionarily adaptive. Not for the individual, god knows. But evolution doesn’t work at the individual level—it works at the gene pool level. And the gene pool has historically needed cannon fodder—strapping young braves willing and eager to go into battle in defense of their tribe. And they need a lot of confidence to do that as needed. Especially when the odds are dire."

"Climate science exacerbates this problem, because dumb people think in concrete, definite terms and categories, while climate is probabalistic, fuzzy, hard to grasp even for many with some technical training."

"An interesting corroboration of this foible of dump people is corporate self-assessment programs. I’ve heard that the worst, about-to-be-terminated employees usually give themselves glowing self-assessments, while the star employees are nearly always sober, downbeat in their self-assessment, with a keen sense of and concern for what they regard as their own shortcomings."

"A decade ago it was conceivable that an intelligent person could at least be a climate change skeptic. But in the early 2000s virtually all developed nations’ national science associations came out with climate change statements/warnings in line with what the climate science community says."

"Now, the only denialists left (including the many denialists masquerading as “skeptics”) are either dumb people who have been brainwashed by right wing propaganda; militant right wing ideologues whose emotions control their intellects; or those whose livelihood depends on being denialists."

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-laypersons-have-such-arrogance-when-denying-human-caused-climate-change
 
So pretty much this article has nothing to do with climate change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
A very good reply to this question by Lee Thé, on Quora:

"One facet of low intelligence is lack of self-assessment ability. Thus it’s not what they don’t know. It’s what they don’t know that they don’t know. Dumb people literally can’t imagine a higher intelligence than their own. Intelligent people can. It’s one of the biggest cleavage lines between being dumb and smart."

"This is evolutionarily adaptive. Not for the individual, god knows. But evolution doesn’t work at the individual level—it works at the gene pool level. And the gene pool has historically needed cannon fodder—strapping young braves willing and eager to go into battle in defense of their tribe. And they need a lot of confidence to do that as needed. Especially when the odds are dire."

"Climate science exacerbates this problem, because dumb people think in concrete, definite terms and categories, while climate is probabalistic, fuzzy, hard to grasp even for many with some technical training."

"An interesting corroboration of this foible of dump people is corporate self-assessment programs. I’ve heard that the worst, about-t0-be-terminated employees usually give themselves glowing self-assessments, while the star employees are nearly always sober, downbeat in their self-assessment, with a keen sense of and concern for what they regard as their own shortcomings."

"A decade ago it was conceivable that an intelligent person could at least be a climate change skeptic. But in the early 2000s virtually all developed nations’ national science associations came out with climate change statements/warnings in line with what the climate science community says."

"Now, the only denialists left (including the many denialists masquerading as “skeptics”) are either dumb people who have been brainwashed by right wing propaganda; militant right wing ideologues whose emotions control their intellects; or those whose livelihood depends on being denialists."

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-laypersons-have-such-arrogance-when-denying-human-caused-climate-change
Lol. There isn't anything funnier than a liberal decrying the 'arrogance' of others.

As an aside, it was 76 degrees here in Cleveland Ohio yesterday. I would just like to take this opportunity to thank the dinosaurs who had the foresight to die off and turn into the fuel that runs our cars, our economy, makes human existence possible and brought us here in the frozen north a summer day in February. Heres to you my lizard-like friends :cheers:
 
Lol. There isn't anything funnier than a liberal decrying the 'arrogance' of others.

As an aside, it was 76 degrees here in Cleveland Ohio yesterday. I would just like to take this opportunity to thank the dinosaurs who had the foresight to die off and turn into the fuel that runs our cars, our economy, makes human existence possible and brought us here in the frozen north a summer day in February. Heres to you my lizard-like friends :cheers:

How else would you describe baseless denialist accusations of conspiracy and fraud, made by people with little knowledge of the subject? It's pure, idealogiocally-driven arrogance.
 
How else would you describe baseless denialist accusations of conspiracy and fraud, made by people with little knowledge of the subject? It's pure, idealogiocally-driven arrogance.

Actually, the 'ideologically driven arrogance' exists among those who wish to use AGW as a means to empower the state to regulate the behavior of a free people. The 'ideologically driven arrogance' exists in the pretense that something can actually be done about AGW and that only the 'ideologically driven arrogant' left can do it.
 
Actually, the 'ideologically driven arrogance' exists among those who wish to use AGW as a means to empower the state to regulate the behavior of a free people. The 'ideologically driven arrogance' exists in the pretense that something can actually be done about AGW and that only the 'ideologically driven arrogant' left can do it.

Its a new religion and like religion its gospels cannot be ignored or questioned only obeyed.
 
A very good reply to this question by Lee Thé, on Quora:

"One facet of low intelligence is lack of self-assessment ability. Thus it’s not what they don’t know. It’s what they don’t know that they don’t know. Dumb people literally can’t imagine a higher intelligence than their own. Intelligent people can. It’s one of the biggest cleavage lines between being dumb and smart."

"This is evolutionarily adaptive. Not for the individual, god knows. But evolution doesn’t work at the individual level—it works at the gene pool level. And the gene pool has historically needed cannon fodder—strapping young braves willing and eager to go into battle in defense of their tribe. And they need a lot of confidence to do that as needed. Especially when the odds are dire."

"Climate science exacerbates this problem, because dumb people think in concrete, definite terms and categories, while climate is probabalistic, fuzzy, hard to grasp even for many with some technical training."

"An interesting corroboration of this foible of dump people is corporate self-assessment programs. I’ve heard that the worst, about-to-be-terminated employees usually give themselves glowing self-assessments, while the star employees are nearly always sober, downbeat in their self-assessment, with a keen sense of and concern for what they regard as their own shortcomings."

"A decade ago it was conceivable that an intelligent person could at least be a climate change skeptic. But in the early 2000s virtually all developed nations’ national science associations came out with climate change statements/warnings in line with what the climate science community says."

"Now, the only denialists left (including the many denialists masquerading as “skeptics”) are either dumb people who have been brainwashed by right wing propaganda; militant right wing ideologues whose emotions control their intellects; or those whose livelihood depends on being denialists."

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-laypersons-have-such-arrogance-when-denying-human-caused-climate-change

Reasons were
- that the long data rows show correlation but not necessarily that co2 has been the leading variable
- that cost/benefit of spending the money is positive
- that spending the money at the present level of technology is smart
- that the loss of living standards are acceptable
 
A very good reply to this question by Lee Thé, on Quora:

"One facet of low intelligence is lack of self-assessment ability. Thus it’s not what they don’t know. It’s what they don’t know that they don’t know. Dumb people literally can’t imagine a higher intelligence than their own. Intelligent people can. It’s one of the biggest cleavage lines between being dumb and smart.". . . .

"Now, the only denialists left (including the many denialists masquerading as “skeptics”) are either dumb people who have been brainwashed by right wing propaganda; militant right wing ideologues whose emotions control their intellects; or those whose livelihood depends on being denialists."

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-laypersons-have-such-arrogance-when-denying-human-caused-climate-change

Lee The's thesis is uninformed and thoughtless. There are powerful scientific arguments against the AGW hypothesis, which is itself just an artifact of 19th century physics.

Did exploding stars help life on Earth to thrive?

https://www.ras.org.uk/search/.../2117-did-exploding-stars-help-life-on-earth-to-thriv...


The Royal Astronomical Society, encourages and promotes the study of astronomy, ... According to Henrik Svensmark, the rate of nearby supernovae strongly ...



Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges | Astronomy & Geophysics ...

astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/1/1.18.short


by H Svensmark - ‎2007 - ‎Cited by 277 - ‎Related articles
Feb 1, 2007 - Astronomy & Geophysics. Royal Astronomical Society .... variations in the cosmic rays (Marsh and Svensmark 2000), a counter-intuitive finding ...



Royal Astronomical Society | Calder's Updates

https://calderup.wordpress.com/tag/royal-astronomical-society/


Apr 24, 2012 - Today the Royal Astronomical Society in London publishes (online) Henrik Svensmark'slatest paper entitled “Evidence of nearby supernovae ...


Cosmic Rays and Climate | ScienceBits

www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate


By: Nir J. Shaviv Article originally appeared in PhysicaPlus. Sir William Herschel was the first to seriously consider the sun as a source of climate variations, ...


How Might Climate be Influenced by Cosmic Rays? | Institute for ...

https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2015/shaviv-milky-way


These cosmic rays primarily consist of protons and heavier nuclei with energies between their rest mass and a trillion times ... By Nir Shaviv · Published 2015.










 
A very good reply to this question by Lee Thé, on Quora:

"One facet of low intelligence is lack of self-assessment ability. Thus it’s not what they don’t know. It’s what they don’t know that they don’t know. Dumb people literally can’t imagine a higher intelligence than their own. Intelligent people can. It’s one of the biggest cleavage lines between being dumb and smart."

"This is evolutionarily adaptive. Not for the individual, god knows. But evolution doesn’t work at the individual level—it works at the gene pool level. And the gene pool has historically needed cannon fodder—strapping young braves willing and eager to go into battle in defense of their tribe. And they need a lot of confidence to do that as needed. Especially when the odds are dire."

"Climate science exacerbates this problem, because dumb people think in concrete, definite terms and categories, while climate is probabalistic, fuzzy, hard to grasp even for many with some technical training."

"An interesting corroboration of this foible of dump people is corporate self-assessment programs. I’ve heard that the worst, about-to-be-terminated employees usually give themselves glowing self-assessments, while the star employees are nearly always sober, downbeat in their self-assessment, with a keen sense of and concern for what they regard as their own shortcomings."

"A decade ago it was conceivable that an intelligent person could at least be a climate change skeptic. But in the early 2000s virtually all developed nations’ national science associations came out with climate change statements/warnings in line with what the climate science community says."

"Now, the only denialists left (including the many denialists masquerading as “skeptics”) are either dumb people who have been brainwashed by right wing propaganda; militant right wing ideologues whose emotions control their intellects; or those whose livelihood depends on being denialists."

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-laypersons-have-such-arrogance-when-denying-human-caused-climate-change

I dunno....this layman can look around this forum and see plenty of self described educated people who's thought processes are quite often controlled by their emotions.

The article is junk.
 
Lee The's thesis is uninformed and thoughtless. There are powerful scientific arguments against the AGW hypothesis, which is itself just an artifact of 19th century physics.

If there are any powerful arguments against AGW, I've yet to encounter them. All I've seen in the scientific literature is a few alternative hypotheses (e.g. cosmic rays) that have fallen apart under closer examination and, outside the scientific literature, a lot of pseudo-scientific gibberish.

AGW is not an artefact of 19th century physics; it is a consequence of 19th century physics.
 
If there are any powerful arguments against AGW, I've yet to encounter them. All I've seen in the scientific literature is a few alternative hypotheses (e.g. cosmic rays) that have fallen apart under closer examination and, outside the scientific literature, a lot of pseudo-scientific gibberish.

AGW is not an artefact of 19th century physics; it is a consequence of 19th century physics.

Svensmark's Cosmoclimatology paper (2007) remains one of Oxford Journals' most requested despite being ten years old. His 2012 Supernovae paper published my the Royal Astronomical Society remains groundbreaking. Shaviv's work at the Institute for Advanced Study (2015) has not been seriously challenged.

AGW is indeed a consequence of 19th century physics, with all the limitations that implies. Svensmark and Shaviv bring to the question physics unimagined by Arrhenius.
 
This should help to drain some of the unmerited arrogance from the AGW crowd.


[h=1]The journal Nature is going to begin requiring reproducibility in submitted papers[/h]From the Journal of Irreproducible Science – over 2/3s of researchers say they are unable to replicate study results WUWT Reader “QQBoss” writes: The BBC reports (shockingly), that the journal Nature is going to begin requiring a reproducibility checklist of authors, based on a survey performed last year where at least 70% of respondents (self-selected,…
Continue reading →
 
If there are any powerful arguments against AGW, I've yet to encounter them. All I've seen in the scientific literature is a few alternative hypotheses (e.g. cosmic rays) that have fallen apart under closer examination and, outside the scientific literature, a lot of pseudo-scientific gibberish.

AGW is not an artefact of 19th century physics; it is a consequence of 19th century physics.
For the most part the Scientific skeptical argument against AGW, is not that AGW does not exists, but rather that the climates sensitivity to added CO2,
is at the very low end of the IPCC's range, and as such is not a large concern.
As to the layperson, while it may take more expertise then humanity currently possesses to decipher the climates actual sensitivity to added CO2,
it does not take any special level of training to look at the temperature data and see it is not doing what the IPCC claim it should be doing.
Is it warming, almost certainly, is it warming at a rate to hit an ECS between 3 and 4.5 C, very likely not.
Also, the 19th century physics was good for it's day, but even then there were critics who pointed out that the effect was a diurnal and annual variation.
Today much of the error, is because of the diurnal and seasonal asymmetry of the observed warming.
Perhaps Tyndail was on to something!
 
How else would you describe baseless denialist accusations of conspiracy and fraud, made by people with little knowledge of the subject? It's pure, idealogiocally-driven arrogance.

From my experience, it is arrogance and ignorance that people have who call us deniers.

There is a very small handful of actual deniers that visit here and try to debate the climate sciences from time to time, but not those of us who disagree with you now, who are regulars.

We are not denying that man has an effect. We just disagree with the stated levels of damage and alarmism.

We are not deniers, and you show your ignorant arrogance every time you call one of us a denier.
 
Last edited:
The fact that you appear to be unable to distinguish between religion and science supports Lee Thé's thesis.

The simple fact is, those of you who don't understand the science, but hold faith to it, is treating it like a religion!

The similarity of alarmism and religion is uncanny!
 
Svensmark's Cosmoclimatology paper (2007) remains one of Oxford Journals' most requested despite being ten years old. His 2012 Supernovae paper published my the Royal Astronomical Society remains groundbreaking. Shaviv's work at the Institute for Advanced Study (2015) has not been seriously challenged.

And yet since cosmic radiation has remained more or less steady over the period of instrumental records - fluctuating with the solar cycle and if anything increasing slightly as the sun has cooled - their theory has absolutely zero explanatory power for the modern warming, though it's a possible line of enquiry regarding climate shifts on geological timeframes. There are several as-yet undemonstrated steps between cosmic rays and cloud formation rates, but if true the increased formation of cloud condensation nuclei catalyzed by increasing cosmic radiation would have contributed to planetary cooling, not warming.




AGW is indeed a consequence of 19th century physics,

And yet we have members who assert that it's a hoax which originated in the 1970s (Ocean) or at the end of the Cold War (Flogger).

For the most part the Scientific skeptical argument against AGW, is not that AGW does not exists, but rather that the climates sensitivity to added CO2,
is at the very low end of the IPCC's range, and as such is not a large concern.

You're speaking only for yourself, of course. At various times we've seen things like:
- Jack Hays promoting material which denies that the atmospheric CO2 increase is even caused by the burning of fossil fuels at all

- Lord of Planar claiming that only a fraction of the temperature increases can be attributed to greenhouse gases, asserting at different times that both solar variation and albedo have had larger effects

- Tim the Plumber and others asserting that 3 or 4 degree global temperature increases are good and desirable

- Innumerable posters, including all of the above and I'm pretty sure you yourself, claiming (or 'liking' claims) that the global temperature records have been deliberately falsified to show additional warming

- And as mentioned above, the various broader conspiracy theories ranging from the blatantly absurd suggestions from the likes of Flogger and Ocean, to subtler suggestions that it's all a result of scientific funding biases (which might almost be plausible if they weren't completely devoid of evidence and utterly fail to account for either the international or multi-decadal growth in consensus on the subject regardless of ebbs and flows of political influence)
 
Last edited:
I think what's driving it is the perception that AGW can be used to control people through government intervention. But the science is what it is. It's one thing to be against policy proposals, it's another to claim the science itself is flawed because you don't like the resultant policy proposals. The science doesn't lie and people who pretend white is black because of a liberal or UN conspiracy are missing the point.
 
A very good reply to this question by Lee Thé, on Quora:

"One facet of low intelligence is lack of self-assessment ability. Thus it’s not what they don’t know. It’s what they don’t know that they don’t know. Dumb people literally can’t imagine a higher intelligence than their own. Intelligent people can. It’s one of the biggest cleavage lines between being dumb and smart."

"This is evolutionarily adaptive. Not for the individual, god knows. But evolution doesn’t work at the individual level—it works at the gene pool level. And the gene pool has historically needed cannon fodder—strapping young braves willing and eager to go into battle in defense of their tribe. And they need a lot of confidence to do that as needed. Especially when the odds are dire."

"Climate science exacerbates this problem, because dumb people think in concrete, definite terms and categories, while climate is probabalistic, fuzzy, hard to grasp even for many with some technical training."

"An interesting corroboration of this foible of dump people is corporate self-assessment programs. I’ve heard that the worst, about-to-be-terminated employees usually give themselves glowing self-assessments, while the star employees are nearly always sober, downbeat in their self-assessment, with a keen sense of and concern for what they regard as their own shortcomings."

"A decade ago it was conceivable that an intelligent person could at least be a climate change skeptic. But in the early 2000s virtually all developed nations’ national science associations came out with climate change statements/warnings in line with what the climate science community says."

"Now, the only denialists left (including the many denialists masquerading as “skeptics”) are either dumb people who have been brainwashed by right wing propaganda; militant right wing ideologues whose emotions control their intellects; or those whose livelihood depends on being denialists."

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-laypersons-have-such-arrogance-when-denying-human-caused-climate-change

Good!

Attack the people you disagree with.

Don't support the conclusions.

Don't address the questions.

The classic Liberal approach: Don't think. Don't question. Listen to me and shut up. Surrender any attempt to think or reason or figure things out. It's a hopeless endeavor since you're ignorant anyway.

We are at the highest level of CO2 in more than a half million years by far. We are below the highest temperatures in this interglacial or any interglacial of the last half million years. This doesn't seem to track with the party line

I realize that I am not allowed to ask questions, but, If I were allowed, I might ask why we are not warmer: at least as warm as the average of the predictions? All of the really smart guys getting funding say we should be warmer and many of them are retroactively adjusting data collected in the past to prove it.

I realize that you, too, are not allowed to think and you are a good follower. If you were allowed to think, what might you think?

Also, the overwhelming majority of predictions from experts in the field are wrong and wrong on the warm side of the scale. Again, if you were allowed to think, what might you think?
 
And yet since cosmic radiation has remained more or less steady over the period of instrumental records - fluctuating with the solar cycle and if anything increasing slightly as the sun has cooled - their theory has absolutely zero explanatory power for the modern warming, though it's a possible line of enquiry regarding climate shifts on geological timeframes. There are several as-yet undemonstrated steps between cosmic rays and cloud formation rates, but if true the increased formation of cloud condensation nuclei catalyzed by increasing cosmic radiation would have contributed to planetary cooling, not warming.

Professor Shaviv disagrees.

Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: “Solar Activity Responsible For About ...

notrickszone.com › 2015 › March › 21


Mar 21, 2015 - Israeli scientist Nir Shaviv recently posted at his site an article on the effects of cosmic radiation on climate. At the end he summarizes:.
 
You're speaking only for yourself, of course. At various times we've seen things like:
- Jack Hays promoting material which denies that the atmospheric CO2 increase is even caused by the burning of fossil fuels at all

- Lord of Planar claiming that only a fraction of the temperature increases can be attributed to greenhouse gases, asserting at different times that both solar variation and albedo have had larger effects

- Tim the Plumber and others asserting that 3 or 4 degree global temperature increases are good and desirable

- Innumerable posters, including all of the above and I'm pretty sure you yourself, claiming (or 'liking' claims) that the global temperature records have been deliberately falsified to show additional warming

- And as mentioned above, the various broader conspiracy theories ranging from the blatantly absurd suggestions from the likes of Flogger and Ocean, to subtler suggestions that it's all a result of scientific funding biases (which might almost be plausible if they weren't completely devoid of evidence and utterly fail to account for either the international or multi-decadal growth in consensus on the subject regardless of ebbs and flows of political influence)
No most of the other positions could be loosely grouped is a poor understanding of CO2's climate sensitivity.
Tim seems to be skeptical that the warming if correct would have the catastrophic consequences the IPCC predicts
There may be some merit to Tim's position, since the majority of the warming occurs in the evenings of the cooler months.
 
How else would you describe baseless denialist accusations of conspiracy and fraud, made by people with little knowledge of the subject? It's pure, idealogiocally-driven arrogance.

You seem to be saying that if anyone disagrees with the experts, then that disagreer is wrong.

However, the experts disagree with each other. They don't agree on the rate of increase, the start point in any particular year, the current temperature or the best and most reliable data collection method. They even examine and discard previously relied up on data that is now found to be no longer stylish. They replace this data with data they prefer.

What's a drone to believe? Let me know.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs











 
Last edited:
The fact that you appear to be unable to distinguish between religion and science supports Lee Thé's thesis.

You say that questions are not allowed, the truth must be accepted without doubt and then say that what you present and religion are in no way similar.

Do you think about what you think? A little critical review might help you.
 
Last edited:
If there are any powerful arguments against AGW, I've yet to encounter them. All I've seen in the scientific literature is a few alternative hypotheses (e.g. cosmic rays) that have fallen apart under closer examination and, outside the scientific literature, a lot of pseudo-scientific gibberish.

AGW is not an artefact of 19th century physics; it is a consequence of 19th century physics.

I think asking questions is good. Why do you disagree?

Why is asking questions a bad thing for science?

From Roy Spencer:

Models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.
I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH):





 
Back
Top Bottom