You see an interesting debate between two people about climate change. What is most interesting is the comment by right-wing pundit Bill O'Reilly at the end; "I'd fail both your grad classes." He's saying, "I don't understand what either of you are saying." Which is fine, but then why is he constantly denying climate change when he's admitted he does not know enough to offer a view? To quote me..
A tacit admission that he does not understand the workings of the science means that it is impossible for him to make his mind up on the basis of logic and facts; because he is ill equipped to understand them. No shame there, I'm not much better. That means he is making his mind up only on the basis of 'truthiness' - what he'd like to be true rather than what is true. However I don't then call out people as frauds who's work I don't understand simply because it does not accord with my bias. I do critique the work of denailists because it is written by fellow amateurs using simple tricks that even a basic bullshit detector will spot.