Question:
Is the entire global warming debate just another example of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Is the entire global warming debate just another example of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
Ten answers:
?
2016-12-26 16:32:21 UTC
Is the comprehensive international warming debate only yet another occasion of the Dunning-Kruger effect? definite. there is not any actual info against AGW, or it may be everywhere in the papers. i think of dana's 17 thumbs down teach you hit a nerve with this question!
2010-02-19 12:48:33 UTC
Is the entire global warming debate just another example of the Dunning-Kruger effect?



Yes. there is no real evidence against AGW, or it would be all over the papers.

I think dana's 17 thumbs down show you hit a nerve with this question!
Baccheus
2010-02-19 12:01:42 UTC
There is no debate, other than a Dunning-Kruger effect. At least as to whether man is causing the environment to warm, those who really understand the subject became 100% agreed as long as five years ago. The only people left to pretend to debate it are people who do not have the competencies to comment on it. The more common term for people expressing opinions on subjects they know nothing is "to blow out of one's .. . "



Among the details of AGW such as how fast, what mix of natural and man-made forcings, causes of year-to-year fluctuations, the net feedback of clouds, the climate's sensitivity to greenhouse gasses and (corollaryary) to aerosol, etc .. -- these are still being researched and debated in real science literature. So here we have both real debate and Dunning-Kruger. A new study will be published with a tightly defined conclusion intended for other scientists to learn and build upon, and the know-nothings will try to apply it as proof of whatever they want proved.



I'm not 100% sure that Dunning-Kruger explains all of the nonsense. Dunning-Kruger is an unintional effect of which people are unaware. Many of the stupid distortions are published by people with a specific political agenda. Users of conservative-leaning media are particularly simple-minded: they like simple answers, labels applied to good people and bad people, and comfort that they are the good people and what they see is right and true. Many media recognize that it is easier to attract an audience with simple conservative messages then to explain complex subjects. So these media take on the simple-minded messages, not to promote truth but to attract an advertising audience. This is why extreme-conservatives like to label science as "liberal", its because they are taught by their media that complex subjects beyond their understanding are evil and therefore liberal. So, those who promote the simple-minded messages do so intentially and with the knowledge that Dunning-Kruger effects can be created within their audience, and will in turn make that audience more loyal. The media is manipulative; the audience suffers Dunning-Krugers.
2010-02-19 11:23:35 UTC
Absolutely. The scientists have greatly overestimated their competence in the creation of computer models and have placed too much reliance upon non-observational, non-experimental, computer model based psuedo-science. Most of them have at least been intelligent enough to state their claims with uncertainty and without making the bold statements of "facts". Unfortunately, not all of the scientists have been this wise.



The believers and skeptics alike believe themselves to be smart by pointing to this month or that month, this area or that area, while not understanding that the climate is always in a state of change, so that changes up or down, have little to do with the validity of the idea. Indeed given the uncertainty inherent in the climate and the large noise I think all of the 10-40 year analyses are rather worthless.



Many people have latched on to one of the extremes in the sides. Either CO2 is going to cause the end of the world or it has absolutely no ability to change anything.



CO2 is a greenhouse gas and placing excess CO2 into the atmosphere will have the effect of raising the temp slightly. It will not have the effect of raising it by 4-7 degrees, These numbers are only reached by the use of computer models and have no observational backing. Thus we are left in a debate between two factions that are truly both wrong. I tend to side with the skeptics more because the burden of proof truly lies with those that believe AGW and I do not feel they have sufficiently made their case.



Besides the fact that if I say the temps have raised by 0.74 degrees in the last 100 years, the skeptics don't insult me, whereas if I say that biofuels will do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, the believers do insult me. I tend to find that those that are intolerant will prove to be wrong more often than not.
Facts Matter
2010-02-19 14:37:55 UTC
Not only of that, but (as shown right here) the absence of a sense of irony.
2010-02-19 12:59:23 UTC
Told you before, lots of people believe in God but can't read the bible.

Now apart from this new phrase you seem so fond of, what else did you get for Christmas?
2010-02-19 12:21:56 UTC
It would appear that way. Though the question remains as to whom the incompetent lot are.
andy
2010-02-19 11:50:38 UTC
Actually Dana, it is the AGW crowd and their smoke and mirrors that are wrong. Then again, you are a die hard AGW backer.
Didier Drogba
2010-02-19 11:12:56 UTC
How many times will this question be asked?
Dana1981
2010-02-19 11:07:25 UTC
Yes, it's a very good example. The less people know about the subject, the more they overestimate their understanding of it. This is why so many people think simplistic "common sense" arguments like "climate change is natural" are compelling arguments against AGW.

https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20100219134447AAAyCQl



*edit* holy cow, 13 thumbs-down in a half hour. I guess the denier trolls can't handle the truth!



CO2 expeller says "if I say that biofuels will do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, the believers do insult me"



I wouldn't insult you, but I would point out that you're incredibly wrong, and don't seem to understand that there are many other biofuels besides corn-based ethanol. As usual you're making false statements based on a lack of research.

http://www.ecohuddle.com/wiki/are-alternative-fuel-vehicles-really-green



As you do again here: "These numbers are only reached by the use of computer models and have no observational backing."



I guess you don't consider paleoclimate data "observational backing". So basically you want us to ignore historical climate data, you want us to ignore climate models and physics, and just assume the planet will keep doing exactly what it's doing now. Yeah, because that's how science works.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...