This is such pure bullshit. You stated your opinion that liberals and atheists would be "overrepresented" among those opposed to GMOs and pesticides. Far from claiming they're like everyone else, you singled them out for a completely unwarranted accusation.
Someone who has studied advanced math, like integral calculus and partial differential equations, will understand more than someone without this training. Of course the climatologist is the real expert... but someone with scientific training will understand more than someone without a scientific background,
I would also say this about other fields. Someone who has been to law school for patent law will have an easier time understanding a paper on family law that I will (since I have had zero legal training).
Do you agree with this?
The fear of GM foods and pesticides are generally liberal issues... and I suspect that atheists are over-represented in the people who reject the science on these issues.
I don't go to a podiatrist for my toothache or to the florist to find out why my motorcycle won't start.
In the past, you would have been better served to seek the help of a florist to cure your hypothetical wife's nervous condition than the help of a trained psychiatrist. Flowers would have done her more good than a lobotomy.
But due to the scientific approach, lobotomies are no longer standard treatment. The scientific approach leads towards self-correction and greater understanding. Flower arranging is still flower arranging.
Jesus wept, do you speak the English language? You can't say that someone is over-represented as a subset of any group and then claim that they are just like everyone else. How long will you continue this idiocy?
f you didn't want to discuss atheists, why did you gring them up, singling them out in an incredibly stupid manner?
If you are going to argue that the scientific consensus about climate change is significant, you should accept the scientific consensus about genetically modified foods.