• 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.
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?

Don't be ridiculous. Just because I don't agree with false science dogma does not mean I do not understand true science.
 
Don't be ridiculous. Just because I don't agree with false science dogma does not mean I do not understand true science.

OK,let's look at evolution. Do you even understand the MOST BASIC concept in geology, the Law of Superposition?
 
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

Not all results of increased warming and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are negative - AGW's effect on a cornfield or pasture land is different than its effect on a beach condo.
 
Not all results of increased warming and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are negative - AGW's effect on a cornfield or pasture land is different than its effect on a beach condo.

But they don't even make that argument typically.They usually just deny it's occurring.
 
I would ask the exact same question of gun control advocates.



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

Except for the fact that countries which do not have guns have no shootings, you would have a good point. :roll:
 
Why is it that those who rant about climate change have no clue of the perpetually evolving earth, literally fail to understand that China, India, Indonesia are on this planet earth and are absolutely terrified at the fact that the earth is constantly changing? No one is more a science denier that those who rant doom and gloom about climate change - after it shown global warming claims were a fraud upon false statistics.
 
Except for the fact that countries which do not have guns have no shootings, you would have a good point. :roll:

You mean like Mexico, right?
 
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?


You mean like your OP message?
 
You mean like Mexico, right?

Guns shipped in from the US would make that a country with a lot of guns. Read what I wrote.
 
But they don't even make that argument typically.They usually just deny it's occurring.

In most climate debates its usually assumed to be the AGW version not the regular natural version. Most "deniers" aren't rejecting that climate changes, they are rejecting that man is a significant contributor.
 
But they don't even make that argument typically.They usually just deny it's occurring.

Then that should be an easy position to defeat by simply presenting facts to the contrary. What is not easy, or even logical, is demanding that some of the "richer nations" must subsidize some of the "poorer nations" to develop/implement alternate energy systems. My assertion is that the fast growing world population is the "root cause" of AGW and only by decreasing the rate at which the world population doubles can we hope to limit/control human caused climate/environmental degradation.
 
Says the guy who thinks you need asteroid impacts to melt ice sheets....

If you are going to melt an ice sheet you need a mechanism to get a vast amount of heat energy into it.

Volcano below will do. Asteroid will do. Rain falling on top for a few years will do. Having a large lake in contact with it so the dark water can basorb the sunshine and transfer the heat energy to the ice will eventually do.

Other than that they are very persistent things.
 
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.

Well you putting in the word admitted makes it look like you had to persuade me. I don't really have an opinion of the science of if we are causing increased warming by CO2. I don't know so I just look at the worst case scenario. It is not at all scary. In fact nobdoy can actually point out any specific problem with it.
 
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*

Run away from number why don't you.

Denier of facts so much that you will not even look at them.
 
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

Only one or perhaps 2 christian fundimentalist fools here do that.

Skeptics are far cleverer. You seem not to be able to understand.
 
Creationists -- don't understand even something as basic as the Law of Superposition, but offer opinions on evolution anyway

Some do understand, some don't. God and Christ-deniers need to read this book:

Norman Geisler.jpg
 
Last edited:
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.

What results unfortunately are such as the OP message, which is common academia ignorant arrogance of extreme foolishness.
The OPer has no clue that all new medicines begin as "alternative medicine" nor any clue what "natural" means in the context of healthcare.
The OPer has no clue how vaccinations work nor ever heard of the issues that arise by giving a person multiple vaccinations at the same time.
The OPer has no clue of the many different types of GMOs and the basis for opposition to specific forms such as those that make their own pesticides.
The OPer has no clue where Co2 comes from nor any clue of the geological records of earth.

The OPer learned some words and from this declares he is of vastly superior intelligence running some ego trip on this forum when it is the intelligence of a talking parrot repeating words he heard. Apparently he believes that if he posts "the Dunning-Kruger Effect" enough times he'll sound smart.
 
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*

When all else fails, fall back on creating strawmen and then sneer at your own strawmen, right? "Marxists and scientists!" :lamo
 
A lot of people don't know basic science: I can read about it but only a small amount sticks. So what we do is defer to our betters. If the majority of scholars and researchers tell me that the world is getting warmer due to pollutants or that smoking causes cancer, I'm inclined to listen to them because they're the experts. They can show us their peer-reviewed papers and we can trust they've done their homework. That's what a rational person does.

The problem comes when we don't recognize our betters or we decide what makes them knowledgeable is subjective. If we consider some theologians (our religious betters so to speak) to be the true experts on the nature of the world and that belief trumps science then that become a stand-in for reason. If we allow our political 'betters' to lead us into believing scientists have conspired to make up climate change to get more funding, then that discredits the true experts. This can even trump the well-grounded scientific education we received in school, allowing us to cherry-pick which parts to accept. We can accept the earth goes around the sun and that E=MC2, but not that the planet is billions of years old or that industry affects climate because that conflicts with what those we consider our betters, (depending on your group) tell us.
 
The OP message is simple-minded crap that is laughably foolish. For example, patent lawyers would laugh their asses off at the OP's claim that all medicines are "natural." If so, then no drug company could ever patent any medicine as what is natural can not be patented. The OPer also has no clue what the issue of "natural" healthcare is about on too many levels to name them. There is the issue that there is no economic justification to research natural medicines because they can not be patented. The OPer doesn't even understand what "natural healthcare" means for which to his mind it is irrelevant what a person eats, doesn't matter the quality of air a person breathes, nor any clue that the human body is a super colony of cellular structures that have needs, can be harmed and can be assisted.

The OP message is just chanting words as if he understands what they mean in real broad application context and then sneers based upon such ignorance.
 
OK,let's look at evolution. Do you even understand the MOST BASIC concept in geology, the Law of Superposition?

I understand the Law of Thermodynamics which contradicts the idea that life evolved gradually into more sophisticated more highly developed creatures by natural accidents which have no factual evidence of support. New biologic information being added by some mysterious means to the genes of living creatures is something science fiction writers can only speculate about.

What do I know about theories involving the idea of Superposition? Let me say that I find articles like these most persuasive:

Geologic Column https://answersingenesis.org/geology/geologic-time-scale/geologic-column/

There are many misconceptions about the nature of the geologic record and the geologic column used to represent the rock record. It helps to understand how the standard geologic column was constructed.

The concept of mapping and explaining the rock layers began with Nicolaus Steno, who published on the geology of Tuscany in 1669. Steno set forth the basic rules followed by geologists today when examining field evidence. He actually based his reasoning on the biblical account of the Flood and accepted that the earth was only about 6,000 years old -- a Bible-believing creationist laid the foundation for modern geology!

His law of Superposition states that upper layers were deposited after the lower layers. The principle of original Horizontality states the sedimentary layers are deposited in flat layers that may later be disturbed. The principle of Cross-Cutting Relationships states that a fault or intrusion must be younger than the layers it affects. All of these ideas can be used by both uniformitarian and biblical geologists to identify the relative ages of sediments.


The truth about superposition is that it is an old elementary idea which seems irrefutable. Layers of sedimentary rock follow a consistent pattern which assumes the lower layers were laid down first. Of course the lowest layers were laid down first. Any grammar school kid should be able to see that. What is not proven by observation or man-made laws or theories is how long it took to lay those sediments down. If someone reads the entire article he will see the evidences for considering the possibility that those layers were laid down very rapidly.
 
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*

It also doesn't take a college degree to understand that the CO2 concentration in Earths gas mix is less than a percent, just a trip to Google. One can also look at historical temperature norms and CO2 concentrations for the past 10 million years and legitimately question where the hysteria for global warming and CO2 aversion is coming from.
 
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.


To the bolded;
You are so right there.
When i was researching KRATOM as a pain killer, a kratom favorable website had a video that autoplayed.
It said..." after all, it is all natural " with acoustic guitar playing in the background and people walking and smiling in a beautiful park in the sunshine. Sweet scene.

I sent them an email letting them know "all natural" does not mean automatically good for you.
Monk's Hood and Hemlock are also "all natural" and will kill you. So will apple seeds.

I am using it only because the government's negative information about it is much, much worse.
It remind's me of a 1930's Reefer Madness movie.
...and yet they are the one's who want to be allowed to study it and see if it is "safe".
Their conclusion would be written before they even start.

Now, where have they done that before?
 
I would ask the exact same question of gun control advocates.



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

My liberal sister-in-law wanted to know why I can't just use a mortar for home protection instead of a shotgun.
Demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the two.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom