Surface Detail
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2016
- Messages
- 3,244
- Reaction score
- 1,232
- Location
- English Midlands
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Lol. There isn't anything funnier than a liberal decrying the 'arrogance' of others.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:
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.
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
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
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
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.
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,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.
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.
The fact that you appear to be unable to distinguish between religion and science supports Lee Thé's thesis.
The fact that you appear to be unable to distinguish between religion and science supports Lee Thé's thesis.
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,
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.
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
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.
No most of the other positions could be loosely grouped is a poor understanding of CO2's climate sensitivity.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)
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.
The fact that you appear to be unable to distinguish between religion and science supports Lee Thé's thesis.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?