• 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 those who don't understand even basic science offer opinions on it anyway?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Suburban Jedi

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2018
Messages
524
Reaction score
203
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Creationists -- don't understand even something as basic as the Law of Superposition, but offer opinions on evolution anyway
Anti-Vaxxers -- have no idea what neutrophils are, or how herd immunity works,but offer opinions on vaccinations anyway
Anti-GMO activists -- don't know even what ATGC means, but offer opinions on GMOs anyway
Alternative Medicine wackos -- think anything "natural" is OK, without understanding even VERY BASIC biochemistry, and that all medications are ultimately derived from naturally occurring substances.

AGW deniers are no different. They don't understand how the Greenhouse effect works, don't understand the EM spectrum, isotopic ratios, are utterly ignorant about BASIC chemistry, physics,geology and climatology. Most of the time they don't even understand the difference between weather and climate. Yet they form opinions on this topic, and strongly voice them anyway.

So my question is why? My guess is the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which is sometimes bolstered by a belief in conspiracy theories.

NOTE: For some reason, I was not given the option of offering possible responses. My guess is because of my (now deleted) poll about Trump's IQ yesterday.
 
Last edited:

KevinKohler

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2011
Messages
23,772
Reaction score
11,092
Location
CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I would ask the exact same question of gun control advocates.



Everyone wants to micro manage things they don't understand.
 

Suburban Jedi

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2018
Messages
524
Reaction score
203
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I would ask the exact same question of gun control advocates.



Everyone wants to micro manage things they don't understand.

Fair point. I think back to the "Assault Weapons" ban of the 1990s, that didn't actually address what made a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine dangerous, but rather just made them "look" dangerous. They replaced the pistol grips and folding stocks with thumbhole stocks, and took off the bayonet, the flash suppressor, etc and -- VOILA!!-- that AK-47 "Assault Rife" became a perfectly legal MAK-90,and just as lethal as ever.
 
Last edited:

TheParser

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2018
Messages
7,732
Reaction score
2,932
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Because we human beings like to talk.

That's why we have a mouth.

Like most members, I want to blow off steam, even if I do not know what I am talking about.

That's why the dictionary lists the word "opinion."
 

Lovebug

Let go and let God
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
23,944
Reaction score
10,050
Location
south
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Opinions, everyone's got one. Hey, and I heard that no one is perfect. So there is that.
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,820
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Creationists -- don't understand even something as basic as the Law of Superposition, but offer opinions on evolution anyway
Anti-Vaxxers -- have no idea what neutrophils are, or how herd immunity works,but offer opinions on vaccinations anyway
Anti-GMO activists -- don't know even what ATGC means, but offer opinions on GMOs anyway
Alternative Medicine wackos -- think anything "natural" is OK, without understanding even VERY BASIC biochemistry, and that all medications are ultimately derived from naturally occurring substances.

AGW deniers are no different. They don't understand how the Greenhouse effect works, don't understand the EM spectrum, isotopic ratios, are utterly ignorant about BASIC chemistry, physics,geology and climatology. Most of the time they don't even understand the difference between weather and climate. Yet they form opinions on this topic, and strongly voice them anyway.

So my question is why? My guess is the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which is sometimes bolstered by a belief in conspiracy theories.

NOTE: For some reason, I was not given the option of offering possible responses. My guess is because of my (now deleted) poll about Trump's IQ yesterday.

Given that I was the one who explained the basic equasion of the wave to you why do you think that you have tha slightest clue about science?

If you don't have a clue, and you don't, how do you know what degree of understanding anybody else has?
 

Suburban Jedi

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2018
Messages
524
Reaction score
203
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Given that I was the one who explained the basic equasion of the wave to you why do you think that you have tha slightest clue about science?

If you don't have a clue, and you don't, how do you know what degree of understanding anybody else has?

1) We don't have a fundamental difference regarding the cause of Global Warming. You just don't see it as a problem.
2) IN fairness, I had to explain to you that changes in ice sheets and thermal expansion DO play a role in sea level changes as seen in the Mesozoic. You don't need an asteroid impact to change them.
3) You don't need to understand v=f*lambda to understand the Greenhouse Effect, or the role GHGs play in it.
 

Quag

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
29,910
Reaction score
13,192
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
After 10 minutes on Google everyone can be an expert on everything
 

Suburban Jedi

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2018
Messages
524
Reaction score
203
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
After 10 minutes on Google everyone can be an expert on everything

I've found science deniers either:

A)Lack adequate google skills
B) Even if they use google, it's still beyond their understanding
C) Don't really care that they form their opinions in ignorance.

Or some combination of the above.
 

Suburban Jedi

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2018
Messages
524
Reaction score
203
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Because we human beings like to talk.

That's why we have a mouth.

Like most members, I want to blow off steam, even if I do not know what I am talking about.

That's why the dictionary lists the word "opinion."

So basically they don't really care that they're wrong.
 

Quag

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
29,910
Reaction score
13,192
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I've found science deniers either:

A)Lack adequate google skills
B) Even if they use google, it's still beyond their understanding
C) Don't really care that they form their opinions in ignorance.

Or some combination of the above.

have to disagree with you, everyone can use Google to find sites they tell them exactly what they want to hear
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,820
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
1) We don't have a fundamental difference regarding the cause of Global Warming. You just don't see it as a problem.
2) IN fairness, I had to explain to you that changes in ice sheets and thermal expansion DO play a role in sea level changes as seen in the Mesozoic. You don't need an asteroid impact to change them.
3) You don't need to understand v=f*lambda to understand the Greenhouse Effect, or the role GHGs play in it.

I have read a paper on thermal expansion of oceans which was commissioned by the IPCC, well at least some of it, it was very long as they were paid in the millions for it and the basic information probably took an afternoon to work out, it being a well researched bit of mechanical engineering, so it was only necessary to look at the graphs.

That is where the figure of 14cm rise in a hundred years if the temperature was to increase by 1c today comes from.

It was why the figure for thermal expansion in previous IPCC scenarios dropped and they increased the ice melt numbers. Otherwise there is no significant sea level rise to be expected at all.

And no, you have to understand basic physics to understand the way CO2 absorbs IR and whatever. I do not have suficent understanding of the physics involved so i don't comment upon such things. I go with the IPCC's numbers. There are apparently those here who understand far more than I though.
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,820
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I've found science deniers either:

A)Lack adequate google skills
B) Even if they use google, it's still beyond their understanding
C) Don't really care that they form their opinions in ignorance.

Or some combination of the above.

You have no clue about science.

You cannot tell if somebody has any understanding or not.
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,820
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
So basically they don't really care that they're wrong.

I cannot show you that you are worng because you seem to have reached your conclusion without the need for ay skepticism on the way.

I would like to explain why the figures for the ice mass balance of Greenland are lies. That is, in this case, NASA is lying. I doubt you would walk that path with me and look at the numbers as youwould have to drop one of your prefered beliefs.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,542
Reaction score
40,183
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Opinions generally address the perceived faults of proposed 'solutions' which generally include vast expansions of government power and expense.

While few deny that 'income inequality' is an issue, which has some well documented negative effects, many may not agree with a given proposed solution. That does not make them 'income inequality' deniers - it simply makes them opposed to a particular 'solution' being proposed to address that issue.
 

Suburban Jedi

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2018
Messages
524
Reaction score
203
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I cannot show you that you are worng because you seem to have reached your conclusion without the need for ay skepticism on the way.

I would like to explain why the figures for the ice mass balance of Greenland are lies. That is, in this case, NASA is lying. I doubt you would walk that path with me and look at the numbers as youwould have to drop one of your prefered beliefs.

You ALREADY admitted that AGW is real and caused by Anthropogenic GHGs. So if we're actually in agreement, about what specifically am I wrong?

Besides, it's obvious you know little about paleoclimatology.
 

Suburban Jedi

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2018
Messages
524
Reaction score
203
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I have read a paper on thermal expansion of oceans which was commissioned by the IPCC, well at least some of it, it was very long as they were paid in the millions for it and the basic information probably took an afternoon to work out, it being a well researched bit of mechanical engineering, so it was only necessary to look at the graphs.

That is where the figure of 14cm rise in a hundred years if the temperature was to increase by 1c today comes from.

It was why the figure for thermal expansion in previous IPCC scenarios dropped and they increased the ice melt numbers. Otherwise there is no significant sea level rise to be expected at all.

And no, you have to understand basic physics to understand the way CO2 absorbs IR and whatever. I do not have suficent understanding of the physics involved so i don't comment upon such things. I go with the IPCC's numbers. There are apparently those here who understand far more than I though.

It takes a physics degree to understand that CO2 strongly absorbs IR with a frequency of 15 micrometers,and this is why it keeps OLR from escaping into space?
*chuckle*
 

Suburban Jedi

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2018
Messages
524
Reaction score
203
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I cannot show you that you are worng because you seem to have reached your conclusion without the need for ay skepticism on the way.

I would like to explain why the figures for the ice mass balance of Greenland are lies. That is, in this case, NASA is lying. I doubt you would walk that path with me and look at the numbers as youwould have to drop one of your prefered beliefs.

Ah so you're a conspiracy theorist as well. So glad you and altruistic billionaries are saving the world from that secret cabal of Marxists and scientists intent on world domination.

*chuckle*
 

Suburban Jedi

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2018
Messages
524
Reaction score
203
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Opinions generally address the perceived faults of proposed 'solutions' which generally include vast expansions of government power and expense.

While few deny that 'income inequality' is an issue, which has some well documented negative effects, many may not agree with a given proposed solution. That does not make them 'income inequality' deniers - it simply makes them opposed to a particular 'solution' being proposed to address that issue.

The problem with that idea is that many if not most don't address AGW from the position of "Yes it's real, but what are the best solutions for this problem?"

Rather, they deny it's even occurring -- without even understanding the relevant concepts
 

marke

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2018
Messages
34,752
Reaction score
3,960
Location
north carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Creationists -- don't understand even something as basic as the Law of Superposition, but offer opinions on evolution anyway
Anti-Vaxxers -- have no idea what neutrophils are, or how herd immunity works,but offer opinions on vaccinations anyway
Anti-GMO activists -- don't know even what ATGC means, but offer opinions on GMOs anyway
Alternative Medicine wackos -- think anything "natural" is OK, without understanding even VERY BASIC biochemistry, and that all medications are ultimately derived from naturally occurring substances.

AGW deniers are no different. They don't understand how the Greenhouse effect works, don't understand the EM spectrum, isotopic ratios, are utterly ignorant about BASIC chemistry, physics,geology and climatology. Most of the time they don't even understand the difference between weather and climate. Yet they form opinions on this topic, and strongly voice them anyway.

So my question is why? My guess is the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which is sometimes bolstered by a belief in conspiracy theories.

NOTE: For some reason, I was not given the option of offering possible responses. My guess is because of my (now deleted) poll about Trump's IQ yesterday.

What did I learn in college in the 1970s? I learned that professors can be merely propagandists for the popular positions and widely accepted views, not those who encourage questioning long held or preferred dogmas. They are, after all, paid to propagate what is written in the acceptable curricula by writers with specific biases. Global warming propaganda has multiple flaws and many reputable researchers asking the public to reexamine especially bad assumptions. Evolution is not proven science and there are many reputable researchers who publish reports which should be examined by anyone wishing to be right instead of wishing to be accepted for not rocking the popular science dogma boat.

College does not give intellectual honesty, intellectual integrity, independent thinking, or tolerance towards those who do possess those qualities. College also does not instill true genius into blind followers of propaganda of unsupported or unproven dogma.
 
Last edited:

Suburban Jedi

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2018
Messages
524
Reaction score
203
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What did I learn in college in the 1970s? I learned that professors are often just propagandists for the popular positions and widely accepted views, not those who encourage questioning long held or preferred dogmas. Global warming propaganda has multiple flaws and many reputable researchers asking the public to reexamine especially bad assumptions. Evolution is not proven science and there are many reputable researchers who publish reports which should be examined by anyone wishing to be right instead of wishing to be accepted for not rocking the popular science dogma boat.

College does not give intellectual honesty, intellectual integrity, independent thinking, or tolerance towards those who do possess those qualities. College also does not instill true genius into blind followers of propaganda of unsupported or unproven dogma.

Straw man. We're not debating college experience.

My question is simply this: Why do you form an opinion on a topic when you don't even understand it on a grade school level?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom