Motives, part 1: hatred and rage?
Mar 13th, 2012 by Unamused
Robert Lindsay thinks one should stay away from Mangan’s.
This is a very reactionary Libertarian, hyper-masculine, MRA, misogynist/sexist and anti-Black racist website. It’s nasty and ugly. I don’t care how good the writing is. Why even go there.
The answer to that rhetorical question, by the way, is that Dennis Mangan is much more informative and insightful than Robert Lindsay, who goes on to indulge in one of the nastiest and ugliest forms of (invalid) argumentation: Questioning Opponents’ Motives with a Presumptuous Amateur Psychoanalysis, or QuOMPAP.
Most people just say QuOMPAP
QuOMPAP is by far the creepiest of fallacies, and comes in many flavors. Here are a few. Note that, as with frozen yogurt, the sexual flavors are the worst.
- “You’re opposed to immigration because you’re afraid of foreigners.” Phil Donahue employed a variant of this in an interview with/attack on Jared Taylor.
- “You’re opposed to miscegenation because you want more hot white girls for yourself.” I started to get this a lot after I wrote a flyer explaining why white women shouldn’t date black men.
- “You’re opposed to feminism because you can’t get laid.” This is literally the only argument feminists have.
I assume the flaws in this argument form are obvious. One might as well say: “You only disagree with me about the relative influence of genes on race differences in intelligence because as a small child you were robbed by a sea otter at the beach.”
For the record, my opinions about behavior genetics have little, if anything, to do with my perfectly rational fear and hatred of the vile sea otter, chubbiest member of the weasel family.
He took my conch!
Also for the record, I am currently in a competition to clutter up the record with the greatest possible number of weasel facts and other pointless things.
HATRED AND RAGE (not really)
Lindsay wants to know why the “HBD [human biodiversity] crowd,” whatever that is, is “obsessed” with the average intelligence of black Americans. “White racism against Blacks,” he explains, “is the biggest White racism of all,” and
HBD pounding away at Black IQ makes no sense until we see it in this light. The emphasis [on] Black IQ can only [be] seen from the [point of view] of their high degree of hatred and rage against Blacks. The HBD crowd could pretty much [not] care less about the other groups tulio [a commenter] mentioned, hence they do not mention them and their IQ’s which are near the Black range. Seen in this light, HBD ranting about “Black IQ” is just another club to use to beat Black people over the head with.
I attempted to articulate another (altogether less insulting, presumptuous, uninformative, baseless, etc.) reason why many HBD enthusiasts (not to mention race realists, as opposed to race denialists), such as me, might spend so much time discussing race differences in intelligence and comparing black people to white people.
Let us assume that we live in the United States of America and, as HBD enthusiasts, want to discuss racial differences of some sort. In order to do so, we have to compare races. Which races should we compare?
How about white people? (Yes, they’re people too.) For one thing, they are still the majority in this country. For another, we ourselves are overwhelmingly white. Of course we are — who else needs race realism? Everyone else is cashing in on race denialism.
And how about black people? They certainly provide the most spectacular contrast, and one of the most relevant. While Hispanics are more numerous, they are also less dysfunctional in just about every way. (Cubans are especially good.) East Asians perform quite well. American Indians are pretty awful as a whole, but there are relatively few of them and they don’t make nearly as much noise as black people. As for Australian Aborigines, who cares? They’re way over there in… whatever country Australian Aborigines come from. And so on.
Mainstream media slowly discovering stupidity is bad
Finally, why compare the intelligence of human populations? Because it’s so important (you silly). Even the despicable New York Times is getting in on the action (“Sorry, Strivers: Talent Matters,” Nov. 19, 2011), as I discovered by reading… Mangan’s. What do ya know.
Research has shown that intellectual ability matters for success in many fields — and not just up to a point.
Exhibit A is a landmark study of intellectually precocious youths directed by the Vanderbilt University researchers David Lubinski and Camilla Benbow. They and their colleagues tracked the educational and occupational accomplishments of more than 2,000 people who as part of a youth talent search scored in the top 1 percent on the SAT by the age of 13. (Scores on the SAT correlate so highly with I.Q. that the psychologist Howard Gardner described it as a “thinly disguised” intelligence test.) The remarkable finding of their study is that, compared with the participants who were “only” in the 99.1 percentile for intellectual ability at age 12, those who were in the 99.9 percentile — the profoundly gifted — were between three and five times more likely to go on to earn a doctorate, secure a patent, publish an article in a scientific journal or publish a literary work. A high level of intellectual ability gives you an enormous real-world advantage.
…
It would be nice if intellectual ability and the capacities that underlie it were important for success only up to a point. In fact, it would be nice if they weren’t important at all, because research shows that those factors are highly stable across an individual’s life span. But wishing doesn’t make it so.
You may call it IQ if you like, and pretend it’s just a number, but intelligence matters. (Getting stabbed in the face also matters. That’s why we write so much about crime.)
This leaves one interesting question.
Why even bother?
“Let us assume,” I said, “that we want to discuss racial differences of some sort.” But why would we want to do that?
Why compare one race to another? What is the practical purpose of popularizing, for example, race differences in intelligence or criminality or cultural achievement, when the major races each comprise hundreds of millions of people living all over the place? Why would anyone care that the average brain size among the 15 million or so Sinhalese people in the world (mostly in Sri Lanka) is approximately 1222 cc, while the average brain size among the 7 million or so Swiss people in the world (mostly in Switzerland) is 1408 cc? (Smith and Beals, 1990.)
The surprising answer is: self defense. More next time.
Damn, you’re good.
Who the fuck is robert lindsay?
About time you got back. You could’ve called you know. We were worried sick about you…
Look at the tortured twisting of the liberal HBDer. I pity Lindsay. He grew up in the universal progressive church. He identifies himself as a universalist and progressive. And he believes in the universal progressive dogma. All people are equal! He is a progressive, damn it! … Except for that one tiny niggling doubt: that IQ tests actually do test what they purport to test. And from that tiny seed has grown the mustard plant of doubt, a towering monstrous spicy plant, which poisons the progressive utopia.
HBD crowd could pretty much [not] care less about the other groups tulio [a commenter] mentioned, hence they do not mention them and their IQ’s which are near the Black range.
Near the black range?
Can you send one of those otters over to help clean up the mouthful of Cheerios I just sprayed all over the place?
I am also near the range of Michael Vick’s speed in the 40, guess that it doesn’t matter and that I should be playing in the NFL.
“It would be nice if intellectual ability and the capacities that underlie it were important for success only up to a point. In fact, it would be nice if they weren’t important at all, because research shows that those factors are highly stable across an individual’s life span. But wishing doesn’t make it so.”
WTF, NYTimes, WTF?
Why would it be “nice” if intelligence didn’t matter?
And as to this liberal opposed to “race realists” and their obsession with intelligence stats… is he so obtuse that he cannot understand why intelligence does matter?
That having higher, rather than lower, intelligence is a benefit?
I mean, nobody denies that being more physically gifted, rather than less physically gifted, has major impact on the quality of one’s life. Why would intelligence not be the same? Or many other positive traits.
Seriously, WTF?
Yeah, I noticed this in a post of Lindsay’s that was linked to at IMF. He just assumes that people who talk about racial IQ differences are using that as a bludgeon against blacks, as opposed to using racial differences as a defense. Libertarians may be especially interested in these differences, as that can be used defensively when people say things like “A free market would lead to inequality” or “We can’t take away state intervention until we have equality!”. Are you familiar with fringeelements at Youtube, Unamused? His video “Make the World Flat” might be of interest.
[Unamused: Good video.]
I probably didn’t make this clear when I said “using racial differences as a defense”. People who aren’t antiwhite may also use such differences as a defense against antiracists who perpetually bleat about “white privilege” and “white supremacy”.
A big reason that comparative IQ is critical is because of the politics surrounding it. Let’s assume that the race realists are right and blacks have a lower median IQ than whites. This means that whites will outperform blacks, on the average, in academic subjects. Which means more whites graduate from primary/secondary education, more whites go to and complete college, more whites end up in high end, high paying jobs, whether IT or medicine or financial management (or whatever).
This means that blacks get left out along the way, in increments: they do not graduate, they do not get college degrees (and the networking opportunities which go with them), they do not end up in the high end jobs. You end up with an increasingly dispossessed sector of black Americans.
How does society deal with this? Well, we can see how DWLs deal with it today: by screaming “Racism!” It’s all the fault of the legacy of slavery-segregation. Or the fault of underfunded schools. Or the fault of sinister influences: “institutional racism” or “subtle forms of discrimination.” It can’t ever be the fault of anything organic to blacks because that does not fit into prevailing DWL ideology.
And besides, were the disparities to be the result of organic differences among the races, then DWLs (and a lot of other people) would have to face some unpleasant truths, like all their social engineering is a waste, along with the careers they have made out of trying to solve racial discrepancies. And mainstream conservatives might have to realize that their attempt to recruit blacks are mostly doomed to failure.
So what happens is that DWLs amp up the noise machine. We get ever more screams of “racism!” And more “diversity” agitprop. And more social engineering: an endless parade of affirmative action, Section 8, black history fests, merging of school districts, lowering of qualifications for police and fire department recruits, unqualified people running more sectors of the government, etc.,etc.,etc.
These policies also dispossess increasing numbers of whites and other high-IQ groups. The US is tossing out the concept of meritocracy, or even basic competence. For example, consider what would happen were all the education funds currently dumped into black studies were to be switched over to IT. One wonders how many more high-tech inventions the US would be producing. Heck, we might even have a manned expedition on Mars.
Look at Detroit, the topic of several recent columns over at SBPDL. In this city we have a classic example of what happens when IQ is treated as if it did not matter, and how DWL social engineering destroyed a once great city. You simply can not run a modern society — or any civilization for that matter — by pandering to the lowest common denominator.
Something to think about in the decadent days ahead…
Lindsay wants to know why the “HBD [human biodiversity] crowd,” whatever that is, is “obsessed” with the average intelligence of black Americans.
No he doesn’t. It’s a rhetorical question. He’s been around enough HBDers, race-realists, and ethnopatriots to know the answer already. That’s the down side of being willing to debate your opponents – you’re actually exposed to their arguments. Most libtards know better.
But to recap:
Because libtards are obsessed with Blacks and their problems, and blaming them all on Whites. If White libtards hadn’t spent the last 50 years blaming all of Blacks’ problems on Whites, thus creating a situation where race-realism (on the subject of Black cognitive ability) is not just a scientific curiousity, but a moral duty:
E.g., imagine a fellow with a broken leg, who is suing another man for breaking it. But you happen to know that this fellow was born with his leg that way. Ceteris paribus, don’t you have a moral duty to inform the court of what you know? Wouldn’t you find it a bit odd, for this fellow’s lawyer to claim that the defendant is “obsessed” with his defense (that the fellow’s leg was broken long before the two ever met)? Wouldn’t you find it offensive, the idea that you (or the defendant) are somehow morally deficient for pointing out the facts, when it is the plaintiff and his lawyer who have forced these facts out into the open with their incorrect (at best) or malicious (at worst) arguments and accusations?
Libtards are either sociopaths, or useful idiots for sociopaths.
Californian,
Can you run for office, with that as a campaign speech?
1. Do IQ tests measure intelligence?
A: doesn’t matter. IQ tests measure something, as they correlate strongly with socioeconomic success.
2. Is race a biologic or social construct?
A: doesn’t matter, self described race (basically what govt uses to dole out special rights) correlates strongly with IQ.
3. Doesn’t racism have an effect on socioeconomic outcomes?
A: if we match blacks and whites by IQ, Outcomes are essentially identical.
“Look at the tortured twisting of the liberal HBDer. I pity Lindsey.”
Yeah. I have to sympathize with him. He’s put himself into a very sensitive place publicly: a liberal race realist. This shouldn’t be an oxymoron, and it isn’t in private – a huge number of liberals are de facto race realists, as you will discover if you talk to them 1-on-1. But in public, it’s still taboo. So I admire him for bringing this topic into the open, even if he has to cover his own ass with constant indignation against “racists.”
Californian says: “It can’t ever be the fault of anything organic to blacks because that does not fit into prevailing DWL ideology.”
A good cut-thru-the-crap question to racial liberals would be: “What piece of evidence would it take to convince you that black dysfunction is the result of something within blacks themselves rather than being the fault of white racism?”
Even if they refuse to answer, it might get them thinking about this uncomfortable question. And those who answer “Nothing!” would be admitting that their stance is based on ideology (or fear) and not rational thought.
HBDers focus on black IQ because it’s most likely a major part of the reason for chronic black dysfunction. And chronic black dysfunction is constantly blamed on white people, getting used as a bludgeon to make whites to accept affirmative action, rampant black criminality, and a welfare state that is tailor-made for fueling black population growth. It’s also, rather incongruously, used to bludgeon whites into accepting mass Hispanic immigration (never quite got why, since most Hispanics I know aren’t terribly fond of blacks). The entire liberal worldview is based, apparently, around the idea that black people act badly because white people made them do it.
I honestly wouldn’t care that much about the average IQ of blacks, except that liberals are simply obsessed with blaming whitey for black dysfunction, and making that the basis for practically every policy directed towards white dispossession that they push.
Welcome back Unamused. I thought you had been robbed by a negro, stabbed, and then had your butthole raped, but golly gee I’m glad to see that you’re alive.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I learned a lot from that NYT article you posted and here’s what I considered to be the most important part:
If just 0.8% confers that profound a difference imagine what an 8% (or 80%) difference in percentiles between one individual and another makes. Quite a lot. If you think of percentiles as a “gradient” going from low to high and you can predict results in a way similar to how you can predict results with a bell curve then it almost proves what Geneticists, Evolutionary Psychologists, Intelligence Experts and HBD enthusiasts have been saying all along.
It doesn’t make bell curves invalid, just another way of looking at ways in which humans (and human populations) differ from one another.
actually, as i understand it – if we match blacks & whites by IQ, blacks have slightly higher incomes – at least for triple digit IQ’s, as the 15% of blacks with triple digit IQ’s benefit most from affirmative action, set asides, easy promotion, etc. so they earn more than their IQ would predict – simply b/c they benefit from white’s disingenuous beneficence of giving them advancement they didn’t earn!
Check it out: Percentages of Blacks and Whites (Statistically Matched for IQ) in Educational and Social Outcomes.
After all these decades why don’t they try to prove that IQ doesn’t matter and find one single person who works in a cognitively demanding position with a low-to-average IQ score.
Why compare one race to another?
Because Liberals and the members of the “protected classes” do so all day everyday.
See “Disparate impact”
In United States employment law, the doctrine of disparate impact holds that employment practices may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate “adverse impact” on members of a minority group.
Of course, it must be that the practices are racist – not that there are actual, measurable differences between groups that influence their fitness for purpose.
Robert Lindsay is an impulse writer. He’ll write what’s on his mind at any given time. He, himself, believes in HBD. It’s just that he likes to bash different groups at different times. Sometimes it’s HBD people he bashes, other times it’s blacks, or Jews etc.
Charlize Theron adopts African-American baby boy named ‘Jackson.’
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-moms/news/charlize-theron-adopts-baby-boy-jackson-2012143#ixzz1p8XY2v7Z
interesting 1994 table – thanks! i’m guessing $25K was about the median salary back then. maybe i’m thinking of something like blacks at the same SES as whites have lower IQs, or blacks at the same income level have lower IQs, or maybe that only holds true above a certain level – or maybe i’m just wrong!:) b/c things look pretty equal from that ol’ Bell Curve table…
Unrelated but worth mentioning, lively debate with shrieking harpies, claims of racist cops, and assorted racial shenanigans can be found at:
http://youtu.be/6wj9YJw8whI
“self defense.” i lol’d!
Yes, raw intelligence is important. But, I’ll argue that what one does with that intelligence is more important; education matters. A person at 105 with an excellent reality based education is gonna run circles around the 120 who believes in global warming and Marxism. Lots of “dumb” guys are better at life than yer average college professor.
Lindsay’s point about the white race’s special hatred for blacks is not applicable in Britain. People inclined towards racial hatred tend to hate Muslim Pakistani immigrants. I have met plenty of British people that like blacks but don’t like Pakistanis. I hypothesize this is mainly because blacks partake in white culture to a much greater degree than Pakistanis in Britain.
I would also point out that Ashkenazi are talked about far out of proportion to their number in HBD spheres.
Two things. First, the Griggs vs. Duke Power case and its progeny (“disparate impact”), have basically entrenched quotas (“diversity” or whatever) in our civic structure. Different black/white results in a fire/police exam? Since blacks score lower (generally, that is- cuz someone is sure to point out that some black, somewhere,has scored higher than a white) then it must be because the test was biased to whites having the correct answers. So, with disparate impact and the accompanying diversity, we will always have quotas.
Second, just my own method of dealing with racial issues: I separate blacks (Hispanics, “minorities” in general ) into two groups. The first is that group of minority people who just do their jobs, earn their pay and just do their lives. I call them Black (or whatever minority) Professionals. I know mechanics, garbagemen, fast food workers, attorneys, judges etc. who fall into this group. I have not a problem with a person like this. But… then there is the group of people who make their living off being black (or whatever minority). “Community Activists”, affirmative action hires and promotees, shakedown artists (J. Jackson for example) . These I call “Professional Blacks” (or whatever minority). these guys I do not feel all warm and fuzzy about.
#23 Ren: Charlize Theron will have plenty of time to learn that adopting a picannin is its own punishment. No matter how much she tries to palm it off on her illegal Mexican nanny, there will be misery enough to go around in the years to come.
Meanwhile, back in her home country of South Africa, another case of Amy Biehl syndrome plays out to its logical, inevitable end. Dutch nun caring for AIDS orphans killed with a hammer.
Somebody said no good deed goes unpunished. That’s certainly true with Africans. You’d think people would learn.
the idiotic “disparate impact” ruling by courts flies in the face of the actual statistical science of test bias: tests almost always predict equally accurately for all groups – e.g., even though blacks score lower on IQ in general, a low score predicts similar results in education/achievement whether that low IQ score person is white or black or whatever. Similarly, a high score on an IQ test predicts equally good results on a criterion. There is no bias b/c the same regression line fits all – knowing race does not add to the prediction. tests that predict equally accurately for all groups are not biased! the tests are not biased (but the COURTS are)!
A good cut-thru-the-crap question to racial liberals would be: “What piece of evidence would it take to convince you that black dysfunction is the result of something within blacks themselves rather than being the fault of white racism?”
James Burnham in his epic book Suicide of the West has a chapter called “Ideological Thinking” in which he explores this phenomenon in detail. Is Burnham still being read? He offers probably one of the best analyses of liberalism ever–and this from a book written back in the early 1960s.
Why is the HBD crowd obsessed with black intelligence (or lack thereof), and personality differences? Ironically, it’s so that WE can use “QuOMPAP” against black people. So that we can identify black people’s reasons for doing what they do from our ameteur psychoanalysis of them, rather than individually analysing their stated explanations on a case by case basis.
The truth is that ad hominem attacks ARE valid. In fact, they are so valid, that they’re a compulsory part of the scientific process. If you submit a journal article, especially to a medical journal, you are required to state any biases and conflicts of interest that you have. And those are legitimate reasons to discount a study. You’re also required to be able to spell and use correct grammar, and an inability to do so is another legitimate reason to discount it.
The idea that everyone is equally capable of coming up with correct and worthwhile ideas, is the real falsehood. It’s a falsehood pushed heavily at schools though.
Robert Lindsay is partly right about Mangan’s. It is reactionary, libertarian, misogynist, nasty and ugly. And proudly so. And that does render Mangan incapable of rational thought on topics that aren’t compatible with reactionary libertarianism, such as Global Warming. It also makes him attack causes that he knows to be true, such as atheism.
And conversely, Robert Lindsay’s obvious biases prevent him being able to think rationally about certain topics. And it makes him attack causes that he knows to be true, such as recognising the intellectual limitations of black people.
They are both highly intelligent though, so their opinions are worth far more than those of most other people with those biases.
“A person at 105 with an excellent reality based education is gonna run circles around the 120 who believes in global warming and marxism.”
No, they’ll just think they’re running circles around smarter people, because they’re too dumb for accurate self-evaluation.
Really smart people believe in Global Warming more than normals and pretty smart people do, because they are smarter. Really really smart people, ie award-winning scientists, believe in it most of all.
People with IQs of 105 are dangerous, because they are smart enough and educated enough to pass for intelligent, and believe they are intelligent, without actually being intelligent.
“…Really smart people believe in Global Warming more than normals and pretty smart people do, because they are smarter…”
Yeah but…global warming is a proven farce. One that one would have to be either 1) stoopid, or b) openly hostel to reality in order to fulfill one’s political desires, to believe. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It’s plant oxygen. Yes, even if Al Gore says otherwise…
Hostel. Heh (feels shame)
BP-WP,
I disagree. My boss is a contractor, runs his own company, knows tools and materials inside and out. He can literally fix ANYTHING. Any…Thing, that is wrong with your home.
I’d gauge his IQ being around 105-110. He’s not bright by MY standards and part of him knows that college boy knows it but doesn’t care. Having been in the Army I can work well with working-class people and I know better than to patronize them about their book smarts or why college wasn’t for them.
Funny thing though is that everyone I work for has blue eyes. Literally every one of us. I never tell people that my company is “all White” but they understand what I mean. We know what we’re doing, we work hard and we get the job done. My employer has tried to hire blacks but they have a truancy problem and when you’re needed at a job site you can’t be on “CP time” (a phrase I actually heard at school last week). Nothing against their color, he’s just against perpetual lateness and laziness. He also REFUSES to pay in cash and/or hire illegals. No under-the-table garbage with him because they all know that while you may save a couple bucks collectively guys in the ’90s and ’00s ruined the building industry this way.
Anyway back to the point about 105s running circles around 120s, my boss is easily a millionaire in his 40s because he’s frugal and has put in 60-70 hours a week building his company and cultivating a solid customer base. He knows that some of the guys working for him plan to do the same thing. He knows that guys like me just want some building skills to work on their own homes but will get a degreed job and that’s fine.
Now I’ve had conversations with the my co-workers, but can any of you gather from above what I’ve told you and guess how the people I work with feel about the 120s who went to college for bullshyt degrees and ended up occupying Wall-Street? Yeah, you can bet we look down on them because we’ve already been running circles on people like that for years.
And I think that was the original point.
global warming is a proven farce.
No, the conspiracy-theoretic view of the scientific case is a farce. No conspiracy that big can stand up, and there’s too much evidence to support the science (like the 80-degree temps today where there’s usually snow still on the ground).
The farce is on the “skeptic” side. The “skeptics” claimed that global temperatures hadn’t actually gone up, so a new study was commissioned (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature). When BEST showed that the temperature rise was real, the “skeptics” (some of whom were part of the study!) went with their conspiracy theory instead of the evidence they’d personally worked on.
The parallel between AGW-denial and radical egalitarianism is nearly perfect. It’s a pity that so many people have a need to attach themselves to one political camp or the other, and adopt all its dogmas whether they are real or based on paid propaganda from some supporting interest.
So that we can identify black people’s reasons for doing what they do from our ameteur psychoanalysis of them, rather than individually analysing their stated explanations on a case by case basis.
Here’s a question: what would happen if a critical mass of Americans woke up and realized that each race has a different median IQ, and that this is the explanation for the majority behaviors of each race? Would there be any major policy changes? Would the groups at the low end of the IQ scale riot? Would immigration policies be changed?
I suspect that one reason people generally maintain the belief that IQ does not matter is the difficulties it would create were these differences be publicly acknowledged. For example, how would a teacher stand in front of a class of budding freshmen and tell them that, say, the blacks in the class will probably not graduate, but the Japanese immigrants would, owing to different median IQ?
Think about it.
What would you say in this situation?
One reason that Americans in general promote a tabula rasa ideology is because the alternative is too grim to consider. It would mean the collapse of much of the current educational system, as well as forcing low-IQ demographics to accept futures as a sort of “Epsilon” class out of Brave New World. How well would that go over politically?
So people smile and go along with the game–even when they know it is a fraud. But the dilemma is that the fraud is sinking this country, and now the Western world as a whole. The reality is that countries which have growing low-IQ sectors can not function as modern societies. You either have the low-IQ groups dragging down education, technology, standards of living, and all the rest; or there are fraudulent graduation and employment practices so the low-IQ groups can appear to be competing on equal footing with the higher groups. If not, you get major social upheavals (think of the recent riots in Britain and car burnings in Europa).
You end up with a downward spiral.
Does anyone think things are going to improve, given the current policies in place in America in particular, and the Western world in general? Look at how Americans back in the mid-20th century viewed the future. By 2001 we were supposed to have Moon bases. And what did we end up with? Debased cities, debased education, debased government.
It gets back to getting people to recognize the truth even when, as Orwell puts it, it is right in front of your face.
I suspect that one reason people generally maintain the belief that IQ does not matter is the difficulties it would create were these differences be publicly acknowledged.
You must not follow too many education blogs. Over and over, I keep seeing teachers expressing hope that someday government just might acknowledge IQ and related differences. It would relieve them of the mandate to eliminate their effects, which they cannot do.
how would a teacher stand in front of a class of budding freshmen and tell them that, say, the blacks in the class will probably not graduate, but the Japanese immigrants would, owing to different median IQ?
If the classes had been sorted by achievement (meaning, largely by ability), the teacher standing in front of the “budding” students would be able to say that, yes. The “flopping” students, of very different but not homogeneous complexion, would be listening to someone expressing much more modest hopes for them if they attended such an assembly at all.
That is how it used to be. That is probably how it should be.
Over and over, I keep seeing teachers expressing hope that someday government just might acknowledge IQ and related differences. It would relieve them of the mandate to eliminate their effects, which they cannot do.
Can you provide some URLs of education blogs? Should be interesting.
That is how it used to be. That is probably how it should be.
I happened to read some of the documents in Brown v Board of Education which provided the pro-segregation side. What is interesting is that far from being the “bigots” they were claimed to be by DWLs, that the pro-segregation side cited all sorts of scientific evidence for their side. Maybe their facts were wrong, but they were at least trying to approach things scientifically. We have seen every manner of DWL education policy in the decades since, and need we comment on the disastrous outcomes? More ideology trumping reality.
As for meritocracy, given the official policies of affirmative action and “diversity,” this is rapidly receding into the past.
I suggest you read lizditz.typepad.com/ and joannejacobs.com.
Stupidity is the last thing I hold against negros. What I hold against negros is their high crime rate in things like murder, rape, and thievery; their smell and physical appearances; the noise they make when they ape human speech; their lack of honor and personal integrity; their attitude; their high STD rates; their lack of driving abilities; their “music”; how loud they play their “music”; what passes as negro fashion; negro humor; their high rate of welfare dependency; their rate of drug dependency; their utter lack of civility……………..
Yea the list is long, but their IQ hasn’t even cracked the top 10 reasons of why I don’t care for negros. I know plenty of White folks on the wrong side of the Bell Curve who do not engage in any of those things so there’s a lot more going on than IQ, and negros with supposedly high IQ’s who act like ghetto trash when the work day is done.
#37 Mr Rational: “The parallel between AGW-denial and radical egalitarianism is nearly perfect.
No, actually, it’s inverse. The same leftists who insist “we’re all the same” are the ones who are pushing the global warming scam. And there’s the rub.
Why do I say it’s a scam? I don’t have access to all the data, nor the training to evaluate them. So, as BPWP says, I largely rely on my assessment of the messengers. Specifically, when I find somebody is lying to me, I place less credence in the total message. I consider their track record. I consider their proposed remedies, whether they seem reasonable and efficacious.
The “climate scientists” who are pushing this are the same geniuses who, forty years ago, were telling us that we were heading into a new ice age, and proposing spreading soot over the ice caps to cut down on the reflection of sunlight.
On the eve of their conference in Copenhagen (a spectacular orgy of conspicuous carbon emission, btw, with huge numbers of limousines and private jets in use), they claimed that polar bears were starving due to the receding ice cap; supported by photos of polar bears on the blood-soaked ice, and the pitiful remnants of their cubs. The story was that the bears, for the first time ever, were being forced to eat their young to survive. Nobody thought it worth mentioning that male polar bears always kill any cubs they can catch (it forces the sows to go on heat), which is why you never see happy polar bear family groups in the movies. Mommy polar bear knows that she has to keep the kids far away from daddy polar bear.
Why would I believe these charlatans?
The climategate emails showed, at the least, bad faith among the scientists. More revealing for me, at least, were the program listings from their climate model. I can’t know why they contained each instruction, but it was evident what they were doing. They were adding a “fudge factor” to each year’s temperature record such that, if a flat record were input, the output would indicate a rising trend. It was built into the program!
And what do they suggest we should do about this notional warming? First, they want a global “emissions trading system”. People who want to emit carbon dioxide can buy carbon indulgences from people who have them, but don’t want to use them. In the process, the total amount of CO2 emitted doesn’t change, but a lot of money changes hands.
Then, they tell me, in the interests of “climate justice”, the developed world (White countries) must give Africa $100 billion per year. Yup, that’ll fix it. Pardon me if I cynically suspect that that was the real agenda from the start.
And if we don’t fix it, they say, these same prophets of doom who are buying ocean-front property, that the sea is going to inundate all their properties and the world is going to become a desert and we’ll all die! Bull. The earth may well be warming – it’s been warming for thousands of years – but there’s no reason to believe that a warmer climate won’t be beneficial. These predictions, in the UN’s IPCC report, were, incidentally challenged and it came out that they were based on casual remarks by true believer bureaucrats and Greenpeace propaganda, not on any research.
The whole thing just reminds me of the “Y2K” scam of 1999, when software developers made out like bandits by telling gullible businesses that planes were going to fall out of the sky and medical equipment would fail and somehow their businesses would grind to a halt at the stroke of midnight on December 31st. Yeah, right.
And, remember the ozone hole? Whatever happened to that?
If the classes had been sorted by achievement (meaning, largely by ability), the teacher standing in front….
Mr. Rational,
Classes where I attended public school WERE sorted by ability. There were levels 1, 2, 3, and 4. There were also AP classes designated a 5 but were populated by students from level 4 classes, not really separate but graded on a different GPA scale and where one had the potential of receiving college credit.
Anyway, just as one might predict MOST of the students were in levels 2 and 3. More were in 3 because I grew up in a town 88% White and these students were quite normal and average. 2s were jocks and kids who did drugs and a handful of kids likely to move on to working class jobs but were still good people. 4 were your above average kids and a smattering of geniuses.
Can anyone guess who level 1 classes consisted of? Well they were about half negro and half White, and the level 1 Whites truly were the dregs by our standards: the not much beyond the trailer type (Maryland has effectively zoned out trailer parks, but there are a few relics).
Can anyone guess what went on in those classes? Behavior was horrible. My now wife was the girl who delivered hall passes in our school and she could tell the differences then too. She only saw every day the differences between classrooms and saw them enough to associate what went on in them with who was in them. Can anyone imagine how the teachers of those classes felt and the strain they went through daily?
It must be horrendous. There are three reasons why I will never teach in public schools as they are today (even though I would enjoy teaching in an ideal setting). One of the reasons is because, like we’ve said, I can’t change someone’s IQ. I can’t make them more capable of processing information no matter how much I throw their way.
-W74
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As for education blogs I like city-data forums even though it’s not explicitly education there seem to be a lot of people who describe themselves as teachers posting on there. In this day and age of the internet, even though faceless and mostly anonymous, you really can’t make some of that stuff up.
The problem with discussing global warming is that sometimes people use it to mean:
anthropogenic global warming
… and some people use it to mean
secular temperature increases whatever the source.
And I really hope noöne believes that unusually high temperatures for a week or so in one reason prove that there is any sort of global warming. If they did, then the snowfall in Rome would prove that there was some sort of global cooling. I think we’re just having a sort of odd year for microclimatology.
Mangan’s is one of the least ugly websites, among those that are concerned with the very ugly subject of anti-white bigotry, anti-white pogroms, impending fiscal doom, etc. If there is any site dealing with this that is less ugly than Mangan’s, I’d love to know about it.
I gave up on Robert “I’ve Dated Very Thirty-Seven Girls from Forty-Three Different Ethnic Groups” a while back. He was egging on his attack dog Alpha Unit in threats of violence … as usual, directed at people who were “racist” enough to suggest that blacks are unusually violent.
AnalogMan: No, actually, it’s inverse. The same leftists who insist “we’re all the same” are the ones who are pushing the global warming scam.
There you go, using the ad-hominem fallacy. The KKK is reviled; does that make race realism wrong?
Just because the left is wrong about some things, it does not mean they’re wrong about all things. Ditto the right. Both “sides” are coalitions of varied interests with different backers, all of which have some input into the orthodoxy. Both orthodoxies have elements that range from wrong to batshit crazy.
I consider their proposed remedies, whether they seem reasonable and efficacious.
Bad policy can come out of good science. Consider the Republican “solution” to the 2008 Wall Street collapse, which involved the Fed printing a trillion dollars or so and essentially giving it to bankers. It kept the banks from going bust, but it didn’t fix the underlying problem.
“Green” policy on nuclear energy contradicts the policy on AGW. This has led to some defections from the Greens, including James Lovelock and Patrick Moore.
The “climate scientists” who are pushing this are the same geniuses who, forty years ago, were telling us that we were heading into a new ice age
You never read the paper. It explicitly said that there was no sign of renewed glaciation at the moment; all of the hype was the creation of scientifically illiterate reporters, artists, and editors trying to sell magazines. Have you noticed that humans have a tendency to pay attention to what’s hyped? Salesmen depend on it.
The climategate emails showed, at the least, bad faith among the scientists.
There’s more hype. You have to realize that the scientists have been investigated and exonerated more than once. FOIA doesn’t apply to scientific work in progress either. All the noise about that is the same as yelling “racism” when someone dares to mention undeniable facts about intelligence and criminality.
Do know what the “smoking gun” phrase “hide the decline” was really about? It was about tree ring widths since the mid-20th century, not temperatures. Increasing temperatures (measured, not inferred) should have caused thinner tree rings because of drier summers, but this was offset by higher CO2 concentrations which let the trees fix similar amounts of carbon using less water. That’s the “decline” that was hidden, not by trickery, but by accounting for effects other than temperature.
Now that you know how the AGW denial machine has been lying about that little phrase since a felon stole the e-mails (why doesn’t that felony discredit all the things that came from it?), aren’t you inclined to take its claims with a grain of salt? I hope so.
More revealing for me, at least, were the program listings from their climate model.
Which climate model? There are a whole bunch of them; didn’t you know? That’s where the range of estimates comes from. I don’t think you looked at anything, I think you read an account by someone who claimed to have done so. The first climate model was created by Svante Arrhenius and published in 1896. What computer instructions did HE fudge, decades before electronic computers?
When human-added GHGs are removed from climate models, they yield predictions which look like this graph (read the article it came from).
And what do they suggest we should do about this notional warming? First, they want a global “emissions trading system”.
No, that’s what Goldman Sachs wants (remember the difference between science and policy?). A straight carbon tax would work better because it doesn’t yo-yo and create incentives to game the system. It would also create a rush from coal and natural gas to nuclear power.
I don’t think you realize how much money is at stake on the public perception of this issue. The global energy market is trillions of dollars a year (over $7B/day in crude oil alone), a large part of which goes to the politically-potent OPEC. Nuclear power by itself can upset many applecarts, eliminating huge mining and shipping enterprises and replacing them with a few truckloads of fuel rods per year. Spending a few million on propaganda to protect a trillion-dollar business… follow the money.
The USA could address AGW by more or less doing what France has already done: run the electrical grid on uranium. Do you know how many financial empires would be hit by that? Start with Warren Buffet and his investment in BNSF. Buffett is trying to get nuclear shut down so he can sell more natural gas. Should you get your climate science from him? Or more correctly, shouldn’t you stop?
Then, they tell me, in the interests of “climate justice”, the developed world (White countries) must give Africa $100 billion per year.Yup, that’ll fix it. Pardon me if I cynically suspect that that was the real agenda from the start.
What do you expect? The US right denies there’s an issue, so whose ideas get written into everything about it? It’s a no-brainer consequence of a vacuum, just like the vacuum in response to all the noise about “cultural racism”.
Why do you think the “USA Patriot Act” passed just weeks after 9/11 had the police state’s entire gift registry in it? They were in control of the agenda.
The whole thing just reminds me of the “Y2K” scam of 1999
Oh, for pete’s sake… companies were hitting Y2K-related failures years before, when systems couldn’t take future dates for things like mortgages. There were spotty outages on 1/1/2000 itself, but they mostly hit things like phone systems and ATMs in Australia and were fixed before midnight in Europe. Go read the RISKS digests for that era at http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks
remember the ozone hole? Whatever happened to that?
Just because you’re ignorant and the press is silent doesn’t mean it’s gone away. It is still very much with us, and will be until the reservoir of chlorine compounds is finally depleted.
If you look at the denial of race realism and the denial of AGW, you see many of the same things: hysterical denunciations, personal destruction of the advocates, and predictions that the sky will fall if “we” agree with “them” and set policy based on it. Race realists, of all people, should be able to see this for what it is. We are “those who can see”, aren’t we? Or are we just as blind when it’s not our issue?
i, the vile sea otter, have been following these comments with interest
as unamused has said before, the ‘park has the WORLD’S SMARTEST POSTERS
PS did you know we (sea otters) hold hands while we sleep?
it is so that we do not drift apart
in the sea
I’ve concluded that, other than AlGore (who has been easily shown to laugh at the idea of the same global warming he convinced the idiots to embrace, and hypocritically made much wampum doing it…), anyone who actually believes that man’s activity has any effect on the world’s temperature, is in fact, an idiot.
If you think that what you are breathing out, the very same thing that allows for plant life – and thus animal life (that’s US Mr. Rational), and not the SUN, is causing any heating or cooling, and putting the planet in peril, you, YES YOU, are an idiot.
If after all the emails emerged, which caused AlGore to pretty much go underground, and his global warming crowd to change course and rename it “climate change”, you STILL cling to the AlGore “make easy money off of fools!” garbage, you ARE an idiot.
The erff is freaking HUGE. Fly over it sometime. Go ahead and look out the windows of the plane (try to ignore your lethal, uh, “carbon footprint”; I mean hell, why are you flying if you’re so concerned/convinced in your fairytale? Snickers…). What do you see most? I’ll go ahead and answer for you, because you know it, and so does everyone, and you won’t say it: NOTHING. Vast, no, fucking vast areas of nothing but nature and water. Not too many evil carbon emitting cities, factories, cars, or even…shudder…humans…anywhere! Compared to the erff’s hugeness, the “global warming” spawning area is not even relatively small. It’s microscopic! The erff can’t handle that? Seriously? And to “fix” it (remember, warming would be fantastically beneficial to those who need food the most), we have to…what?…breath less??
It is fascinating to listen to people who admire a total proven fraud (AlGore), and willfully continue with that which even said total proven fraud, has discarded.
And yes, adhom’s do have their place. They are especially apropos with idiots…
Mr. Rational made a number of good points about anthropogenic climate change in his last comment.
“Why do I say it’s a scam?”
Because if you say it’s a scam, you get to feel good. If you say it’s true, then you have to feel bad. That’s a very powerful motivator.
I don’t have access to all the data, nor the training to evaluate them. So, as BPWP says, I largely rely on my assessment of the messengers. Specifically, when I find somebody is lying to me, I place less credence in the total message. I consider their track record.
Very wise. Good strategy. The problems are that your assesment of the messengers is biased by your strong desire for them to be wrong. Also, everyone lies to you, it’s human nature. You have to be able to look at the relative degrees of dishonesty. I was first disappointed in scientists when I discovered that scanning electron microscopes all came with built-in image-editing software, and that all their photos are edited to look better for publication. Before that I had thought scientists were above such tampering. But all scientists are like that, small amounts of dishonesty but still honest and trustworthy overall, and more reliable than anyone else. Any dishonesty from climate scientists is very minor, overall they are honorable researchers. The same can’t be said for opponents of global warming (I don’t mean ones like you, I mean those who claim to understand it), who lie constantly, and are driven by selfishness.
I consider their proposed remedies, whether they seem reasonable and efficacious.
That’s a big mistake. That’s like saying race realism might lead to a massacre, so it must be untrue. I know you’re not indending to think like that, but that’s what you do unconsciously when you start looking at the proposed remedies before deciding whether the problem is real or not.
People have their own biases when proposing remedies. The actual required remedies include filling the sky with dust, switching to nuclear power and other non-carbon-burning power, a complete halt to the use of internal combustion engines, stopping immigration, birth control, keeping the third-world poor, and a lot of belt-tightening. But nobody wants to do those things, and would rather pretend the problem doesn’t exist, or pretend that nothing needs to be done, or pretend that their pre-existing ideology will fix everything, so subconsciously they do.
“The “climate scientists” who are pushing this are the same geniuses who, forty years ago, were telling us that we were heading into a new ice age, and proposing spreading soot over the ice caps to cut down on the reflection of sunlight.”
Many of them are geniuses. The others are just really smart. And if they did change their views to match new data, that’s a sign of honesty and integrity. You are greatly overstating the belief in the ice-age theory though.
“The whole thing just reminds me of the “Y2K” scam of 1999, when software developers made out like bandits by telling gullible businesses that planes were going to fall out of the sky and medical equipment would fail and somehow their businesses would grind to a halt at the stroke of midnight on December 31st. Yeah, right.”
That’s not a scam. A bit oversold perhaps, but there are plenty of ancient computer systems that were never designed to handle dates past 2000, and programs often don’t respond harmlessly to unexpected out-of-range inputs like that.
Sweep the leg: anyone who actually believes that man’s activity has any effect on the world’s temperature, is in fact, an idiot.
When you are stating that most Nobel prize winners in the sciences are idiots, you might want to consider if you’ve gotten things backwards. Assuming, given the Dunning-Kruger effect, that you’re capable of evaluating things correctly.
If you’re trying to sell race realism to the public at large, getting a whole lot of them to dismiss you as a moron because you think Nobelists are idiots is not a good way to start. Most people are ideological and view things through a tribal lens (they adopt the positions of their tribe without evaluation). Scientists are cut from different cloth.
If you think that what you are breathing out, the very same thing that allows for plant life – and thus animal life (that’s US Mr. Rational), and not the SUN, is causing any heating or cooling
Why, yes, I do. I think it because it’s true. The Earth is some 40°C warmer than it would be if it radiated as a blackbody. This is a trivial calculation that any first-semester physics student should be able to do; Earth receives about 340 W/m² over its complete area, it reflects about 39% of that, and blackbody radiation is 5.67 times ten-to-the-minus-8 W/m²/Kelvins^4 times the fourth power of the absolute temperature in Kelvins (solve for T). The difference between that and Earth’s current average temperature of 15°C (288K) is caused by the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is produced by a host of things, including artificial gases like CFCs and SF6, things like water vapor which vary from place to place and time to time, and gases produced by both natural and human causes including methane and… CO2.
Still think scientists are idiots, STL?
The erff is freaking HUGE. Fly over it sometime. Go ahead and look out the windows of the plane
I’ve done it from the controls of the plane.
Not too many evil carbon emitting cities, factories, cars, or even…shudder…humans…anywhere!
I’ll tell you what I saw: huge expanses of former prairie, turned to factory farms devoted entirely to strains of maize. Lakes with perfectly straight boundaries, obviously artificial. Second- and third-growth forest. And roads everywhere, some of them going to pumpjacks extracting the last dregs of nasty black liquid from reservoirs in the earth which had held them for 100 million years or more.
We pump this so Black people can drive around in Escalades with spinner rims, but I digress.
If after all the emails emerged, which caused AlGore to pretty much go underground, and his global warming crowd to change course and rename it “climate change”
The IPCC was founded as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988. The so-called “Climategate” controversy dates from 2009, more than 2 decades later. As I said, if you want to totally discredit everything you say about race realism, start off with this kind of tinfoil-hat crap in front of a knowledgable audience. From that point on, if you say it’s raining they’ll look out the window before agreeing with you.
Thank you, Unamused.
‘Charlize Theron adopts African-American baby boy named ‘Jackson.’’
They do what they do.
Mad-onna kept aborting hers [white or mulatto unborn]
Tom Cruise [gay, Im in lala land, I hear reliable rumors from the inside] his adopted daughter is engaged to a poor, scientologist, mixed race.
Then there’s Rudy Guede over in Italy. remember Amanda’s hard KNOX?!!!!
On and on it goes..maybe unamused will write a piece or 2 on u2, mandela, african imports etc!
I meant to note Mad-onna has a black import.
stonelifter..Get ‘THE BELL CURVE’ if you haven’t, READ IT. It will teach a bit about IQ/Impulse Control… Much of what yr noting relates to INTELLIGENCE.
Far as Warming goes, I am high IQ, they told me that in 8th grade. I am skeptical about GW being anything other than weather = climate change. Its hot or not. If its not IS IT THE NEXT ICE AGE?
SAT enthusiasts, I got a 630 [verbal] with a 9th grade education, back in the days of the real SAT [IQ 125]. I now see College as mostly lefty indoctrination and a waste.
Sorry I keep forgetting all these tidbits.
Gay Tom Cruise [of the lesbian wives, remember I know Insiders]
has a black son! He and his [cover for the truth] wife both did not go to the boy’s movie debut! I saw some ‘tabloids’ at the gym and I saw the news.
Remember Mad-onna chose to abort a few, then adopt black… not any black, african black. [malwi?]
Mr. Rational
MY QUESTION….DO THE GENIUSES ALSO SUPPORT CARBON CREDITS, TAX SCAM?
If they sincerely do they are idiots.
if they are ‘yes, wink’ they’re diabolic.
“The erff is freaking HUGE. Fly over it sometime. Go ahead and look out the windows of the plane”
Those windows are specially designed to cope with the low air pressure at that height. If you opened the window you would be sucked out. That’s because the Earth’s atmosphere is very very thin compared to the size of the Earth. Much more so than most people imagine. Atmospheres around planets are never drawn to scale, or you wouldn’t be able to see them.
And that thin layer of air around the planet, has a ridiculously low density. There aren’t many molecules there (relatively speaking). So the smallish (in global terms) amount of solids and liquids that we burn, do make a significant difference to atmospheric composition.
And it only takes small amounts of greenhouse gasses to make a difference.
“Snickers…)”
You snigger-lover. :-)
“The erff can’t handle that? Seriously?”
Seriously. Or rather, the very thin layer of life on the surface of the Earth can’t handle it. Obviously it won’t affect the great big ball of rock itself much beneath the surface. But we depend on the climate, and even the small random variations each year that don’t have to do with global warming are enough to wreak havoc on us occasionally.
“anyone who actually believes that man’s activity has any effect on the world’s temperature, is in fact, an idiot”
IQ tests show that isn’t true. So you need some other explanation of why we might be wrong.
“i, the vile sea otter, have been following these comments with interest as unamused has said before, the ‘park has the WORLD’S SMARTEST POSTERS”
I’ve noticed that too. You have no idea how much of a relief it is. I used to be a leftist anti-racism activist. And the difference in the quality of discussion is overwhelming. I love the quantifiable facts, graphs, being allowed to notice patterns, the understanding, and the fully thinking things through, and addressing criticisms, that I didn’t realise I was missing out on before. You have attracted a very high level of followers. Well done.
Even the sea-otters here seem remarkably well informed and literate, compared to the average sea-otter in the wild who can’t even talk, let alone type. Although I was disappointed when I clicked on the link and there was no such webpage (don’t waste time and money creating it now though).
“PS did you know we (sea otters) hold hands while we sleep? it is so that we do not drift apart in the sea”
I had a vague recollection of something like that, but it is so cute to see it.
These cute pictures show deep down, all the racists here have the same instincts to bend over backwards to care for dangerous, demanding, low IQ, and spoiled lower life forms such as kittens and black people. Instincts that white people are famous for, and black people lack. Racists are no different, except that we think through where our instincts will takes us if we don’t keep them under control, and we channel it into cute pictures of kittens and otters rather than self-destructive attempts to uplift black people.
90404… remember the difference between science and policy. Carbon credits are policy. Any system which can be gamed is ipso facto worthless.
90404 wrote: “Far as Warming goes, I am high IQ, they told me that in 8th grade. I am skeptical about GW being anything other than weather = climate change. Its hot or not. [verbal] [IQ 125]“
The scientists who warn about global warming have IQs significantly above 125. That’s why half the nobel-prize winning scientists Mr Rational mentioned are Ashkenazi Jews. I suspect, many of the posters here also have IQs significantly above 125.
So don’t just assume that you can outsmart climate scientists the same way you can outsmart the average human being. You can’t.
Your writing doesn’t really reflect a verbal IQ of 125. I guess you must be trying to type your posts on a mobile phone while in a hurry.
Why whats yr IQ and how is it reflected in yr posts?
No, I don’t type well.
In any case, what % of the population has IQs over 125? And what IQ [average] do East Indians have? For an Ok refutation of GW go to elaine Supkis/culture of life news.
Mr. Rational
Yes, of course they are. I am interested in knowing their Beliefs.
Olave d’Estienne, Global Warming has always meant predicted “anthropogenic global warming”, and the prediction has been consistently correct. The only people who use the term any other way, are rewriting the dictionary as a debating tactic to avoid addressing the actual arguments.
So you refute this:
Anthropogenic Global Warming Predictions Consistently Wrong and …
doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
Jul 13, 2009 – Anthropogenic Global Warming Predictions Consistently Wrong and … prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been made
[Unamused: If you want to discuss AGW, or anything really, you have to do better than this comment. It doesn't even link to the post you want refuted. Other than giving your sources, please spend more time writing and editing your comments. Right now, they are a mess.]
I’m gratified to find your comments on anthropogenic climate change by Mr. Rational and Black Power White Power.
The parallels between HBD denial and ACG denial, are striking: compare the two following statements:
statement one.
Africans and Europeans have EXACTLY the same cognitive abilities, and only some kind of Nazi monster would say otherwise, and even if they DO differ, the differences Can’t be caused by genetics, and even if they ARE, then MOST of the differences must be caused by the environment, even if they’re NOT, what’s the point of proving that an entire race isn’t very smart, isn’t that just going to wreck society by causing conflict, and even if we DO need a more frank discussion of racial difference, then shouldn’t we enforce strict hate speech regulations to make sure things don’t get out of hand….? Etc. etc. etc.
Statement two.
The climate has not changed over the past century, and will not change in the coming century, climate change is a hoax promoted by communist monsters, and even if the climate is changing in ways predicted by climate scientists, then they are probably exaggerating the rate of change, and even if they are NOT exaggerating the rate of change, there is no evidence that it is anthropogenic, and even if it IS anthropogenic, then we’ll do even more damage trying to restructure our energy economy, and even if it IS necessary and doable to restructure the energy economy, it should be left to the private sector, government interference can only make things worse, and even if we DO need governments to coordinate restructuring of the energy sector, then….
I wonder how HBD climate deniers deal with the eminent and marvelous Edward O Wilson? He inaugurated sociobiology & launched the HBD movement in the teeth of horrific opposition (by Harvard colleagues such as Stephen Jay Gould et al.)
while conservative HBD are denying climate change in order to be spiteful toward progs, all my favorite bird species are in decline due to habitat destruction and other factors, including climate change.
Here’s an idea: conservatives should be trying to CONSERVE the planet’s biological diversity, not defending the mindless & rapacious corporations that are raping the earth for profit.
I happen to know someone who works at a major climate research center. The best scientists in the world right now are not quibbling about whether climate change is real, or anthropogenic, they are scared shitless, are trying to think of ways of making the coming cataclysm LESS of a cataclysm. No credible scientist on earth thinks we are NOT facing a cataclysm.
I read about climate change for the first time in a book published around 1980 by a (conservative) physicist named James Trefil called A Scientist at the Seashore – he wrote it for vacationers who want to understand things like the tides, waves, the formation of sand, etc. He noted in passing that physicists since the early 19th century have known that the Industrial Revolution would inevitably impact the Earth’s climate for reasons of such an elementary nature that any physicist would grasp them automatically.
It’s a little bit like HBD:
once you grasp Darwin’s theory of natural selection, then racial differences in intelligence and psychology are inevitable. The fundamental category of biology is variation, after tens of thousands of years of separation, a human population evolving in China will differ from one evolving in central Africa.
Once you understand basic physics, climate change is as inevitable as water getting on the floor if you overfill your bathtub. You can’t radically alter the chemical composition of the Earth’s environment without expecting to alter its climate as well – the climate system is highly sensitive to inputs.
These are pseudo-controversies made possible by the massive scientific illiteracy of the general population.
#47 Mr Rational: “‘No, actually, it’s inverse. The same leftists who insist “we’re all the same” are the ones who are pushing the global warming scam.’
There you go, using the ad-hominem fallacy. “
No, that’s not exactly what I meant. I was responding to your assertion that “The parallel between AGW-denial and radical egalitarianism is nearly perfect. ” Identification, not argumentation. The parallel between AGW-belief and radical egalitarianism is nearly perfect.
I’m not saying that AGW can’t be true because leftists believe it. I’m saying that the ones who are pushing it, left or right, are not credible because they make their points by lying. This doesn’t preclude their conclusions being correct, but in the absence of any compelling argument that I can understand and evaluate for myself, it makes it unlikely that I would simply take their word.
I never believed that “hide the decline” thing referred to actual temperature decline. I read the scientists’ explanation of that, and (correct me if I’m wrong) what it amounted to was that the temperature record that they derived from the secondary data didn’t agree with the actual recorded temperatures for the years where these overlapped; so they substituted the recorded temperatures. This may sound quite innocent to you, but it raises the question in my mind: why should we trust any of those derived temperatures, if the ones we can check don’t agree?
Quite obviously, I haven’t seen all the climate models. I’m only talking about program listings that were published with those emails. Also, there were maintenance notes kept by the analyst who tried, over a period of years, to recreate the climate reports from the raw data. It was heartbreaking; I’ve been there, on a smaller scale. It was obvious that the programs had been haphazardly tinkered with throughout, and proper records weren’t kept, so that nobody knew what the program had originally done, when it had been done or why. They just couldn’t recreate their results. That’s basic to science.
Obviously you know more about the science than I do; I never studied physics. However, when you say something like “The difference between that and Earth’s current average temperature of 15°C (288K) is caused by the greenhouse effect”, you make me wonder. Even I, as a layman, know it’s not that simple. You’re completely ignoring the earth’s own radiation of geothermal heat and decomposing radioactive elements. Why are you doing that?
The link is here:
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/anthropogenic-global-warming-predictions-consistently-wrong-and-getting-worse/
But it’s the usual lies. You can tell when people are lying because they use the year 1998, which was an abnormally hot year, as though they randomly chose that point. Dogmatic liars are tiresome, whether they are left- or right- wingers.
Anyway, does anyone want to get back on track, and discuss the issue of motives? I made the controversial suggestion that ad hominem attacks are valid in many cases, and a standard part of science. And I suggested that amateur psychoanalysis of black people is half the point of race realism.
“You’re opposed to immigration because you’re afraid of foreigners.” – That’s not my reason for opposing immigration. But since foreigners do commit a higher level of violent crime than white people, do drive without a license, do traffic drugs that make other people dangerous, do engage in many other unsafe practices, and come in large numbers, it would be entirely reasonable to oppose immigration because you are afraid of them. The disingenuous people who support immigration are also afraid of immigrants, but they can avoid living near them and force other people to deal with the problem, while retaining their moral superiority. They are suggesting that fear is always irrational, but most of the time fear is completely rational, as you would expect from evolution.
“You’re opposed to miscegenation because you want more hot white girls for yourself.” – That’s not my reason, but is there really anything wrong with white boys wanting hot white girls, and noticing there aren’t enough white girls for everyone?
“You’re opposed to feminism because you can’t get laid.” – Not my reason, I used to be a feminist before I “got laid”. I still am a feminist in many ways, such as criticising Islam. But what would be wrong with people opposing a movement that stops men from “getting laid”? That sounds like a perfectly legitimate reason for opposing a movement that would cause such suffering.
I would not be ashamed to have any of those motivations, and they are all sound logical and just reasons. But I don’t think they are the true motivations of most race or gender realists. Anti-racism activists go out of their way to avoid interacting with racists except by shouting at them, so they have no way of guessing or understanding what motivates them. And their accusations seem driven by cruelty rather than honest attempts to guess.
I’m not really looking to get into the whole global warming scam here, since this IS a race realism site.
But how can we explain ice ages (and one would have to assume the inverse: hot periods) that occurred before man was even a twinkle in the planet’s eye? If man were not around then, and certainly were not in any capacity industrialized enough to wreak any actual environmental havoc, how can we NOW blame man?
I’ve heard that the sun’s solar cycles are to blame. High activity periods would lead to warming, low activity periods would lead to freezing.
And nobody is ever going to convince me that carbon dioxide is bad for the planet. It’s plant food. The planet is it’s own filter. More CO2 means more plants which then convert it into O2.
Good stuff, this Questioning Opponents’ Motives with a Presumptuous Amateur Psychoanalysis is rampant on the leftwing.
Some people just cannot seem to grasp that somebody believes something because of REALITY, not because of their choice to believe something.
Keep putting reality out there for the folks who still think you can choose what is real…
Global Warming has always meant predicted “anthropogenic global warming”, and the prediction has been consistently correct. The only people who use the term any other way, are rewriting the dictionary as a debating tactic to avoid addressing the actual arguments. – Black Power White Power
If that’s true, then:
(A) I think you should correct Wikipedia’s definition, which currently reads “Global warming refers to the rising average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans, which began to increase in the late 19th century and is projected to continue rising.” This definition will be read by a lot of people but it doesn’t refer to necessarily anthropogenic global warming and thus will cause confusion if you are correct. (Anthropogenesis is mentioned later in that paragraph as a possible explanation of GW, not as part of the definition.)
(B) I wonder what you would call natural secular temperature change, such as toward the beginning of an interglacial period. I suppose you could call it “Earth-Surface Temperature Increase of Non-Specific Locus” or something horribly cumbersome.
(C) “Anthropogenic global warming” strikes me as a needlessly repetitive phrase.
i think we need ads that say:
“You don’t have to have a low IQ to say
‘Yo, Jaquarius, I’ma gonna punch you in the face’
…but it helps.”
or
You don’t need a low IQ to say
‘He be my baby daddy’
but it helps!
point being: out culture should actively MAKE FUN of & belittle black aspects (axpects?) instead of admiring/pandering, etc.
stonelifter..Get ‘THE BELL CURVE’ if you haven’t, READ IT. It will teach a bit about IQ/Impulse Control… Much of what yr noting relates to INTELLIGENCE.
——-
Which is why my 1st post included the statement “I know plenty of White folks on the wrong side of the Bell Curve who do not engage in any of those things so there’s a lot more going on than IQ”
Writing isn’t my strong suit so maybe I dropped the ball, however I’m fair certain using the term Bell Curve implies I’ve read the book, and my statement demonstrates I understand how IQ relates to impulse control yet think there must be something more to negro behavior than low IQ when I mentioned low IQ Whites who don’t engage in the same behaviors.
I think some HBD’ers damn near worship IQ. If a smart guy with an IQ of 160 says it, it must be true because he’s smart. I call bullshit. IQ does not equate factual accuracy, honesty or automatic suspension of personal basis. Nor does IQ imply integrity or a lack of desire for power, control or fame. For things to be true it must also fit with our everyday observations. For example, there is no shortage of high IQ people saying IQ is bogus or IQ differences are environmental vs genetic and negros are as smart as White folk. Whatever advantage a high IQ brings is null and void in that case. I see no reason why that wouldn’t be true in other issues.
My average guy IQ and logic as it applies to global climate change: When I was younger experts told us we’d be in another ice age by now, and other experts said we’d be dead from drought or pollution unless we did XYZ. We as a nation did not do XYZ and here we are. Wasn’t some flu supposed to kill a bunch of us a few years back? When I was a kid, the smart folks said salt was good for you. Then it would kill you and now it’s back to the common sense notion of use it in moderation. Same for booze. Surely we could come up with more examples where science failed to deliver. There are indications suggesting some global warming evidence was faked and/ or over stated. Folks like Al Gore have not changed their lifestyle to fit their world view. Now I don’t know about y’all but what I believe to be true affects the way I live. Why hasn’t it affected the big wig global warming crowd? We also could spend a few minutes on Google and find who knows how many examples of high level academician dishonesty. Now I’m sure folks have all sorts of supper smart guy reasons for thinking whatever they think. However, seems to me, there’s no shortage of average IQ- logical reasons to question the supper smart guys.
I once read a book ‘WORLDS DUMBEST CRIMINALS’ or somesuch.
Panjoomby you might enjoy.
In Police lineup….’DO YOU WANT ME TO WEAR THE HAT LIKE THIS OR BACKWARD LIKE IT WAS WHEN I MUGGED HER’?
stonelifter,
Theres Nature [IQ + testosterone , etc] and Nurture.
And thats about it, Yes?
Do not discount:
high test.
low IQ
very bad rearing
being told govt owes you…reparations, housing etc.
Thats 4 things alot of even poor whites did not get and it = a HUGE SETBACK!
I recall a tale in the news of some US Asian Mommy who said her 3 or 4 year old said to her in all seriousness;
‘I AM LEARNING 2 LANGUAGES BUT BY TIME IM 25 THAT WONT BE ENUFF. I WILL NEED TO SPEAK 3 OR 4 OR 5.’
Do you think even 1 black child in the 10? million in USA thinks like that? Seriously.
Once again, there’s more involved. I and many of my friends in power-lifting, strongman and stone-lifting “supplement”. Almost all of us are happier and more easy going when our testosterone levels are much higher than average. Not all of them are high IQ and we like to party. Yet we don’t engage in TNB after a hard night of drinking mixed with competition and supplements. There’s no shortage of White moderate IQ, PED athletes not getting in trouble.
The answer isn’t going to be that easy.
make it rain TRUTH: I’m not really looking to get into the whole global warming scam
Don’t use that word if you don’t want to be dismissed as a dittohead. Race realism has enough credibility troubles outside the hard right without scoring “own goals”.
But how can we explain ice ages (and one would have to assume the inverse: hot periods) that occurred before man was even a twinkle in the planet’s eye?
Milankovic cycles explain the recent cycles of glaciation and retreat (which rely on the current arrangement of the continents). The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum may have been triggered by a natural runaway release of methane from deposits in permafrost and in hydrates on the ocean floor. We are seeing what might be the early stages of a repeat.
There is tons of science about this, which you can find in sources as basic as high-school earth science texts. If you make a show of your ignorance in front of people who’ve paid attention, they are probably not going to take you seriously ever again. About anything.
I’ll say it again: Both orthodoxies have elements that range from wrong to batshit crazy. Repeating the right’s orthodoxy on climate may help you with social bonding with other people on the right. It will alienate EVERYONE else, including people who need to hear the truth about race.
FWIW, my IQ is somewhere in the neighborhood of 150. That doesn’t have squat to do with whether I’m right or not. Only the facts do that. IQ probably helps me remember and sort through facts and their relationships.
AnalogMan: Identification, not argumentation. The parallel between AGW-belief and radical egalitarianism is nearly perfect.
You’re confusing two sets; radical egalitarians appear to be almost always in the “AGW is real” camp, but that camp is much bigger than just radical egalitarians. You also have to separate the scientific/factual from the ideological/political. They are two very different things.
The parallel between young-earth creationism and AGW-denial is also nearly perfect, the more so because both are attacks on inconvenient science (facts). The radical egalitarians just happen to have control of the orthodoxy in that sphere on the left; there is nothing scientific about it, as every reader here ought to know. The problem is that the left went with the science on AGW, the right took the opposite position (half out of reaction, half due to monied interests), and now nobody can cross the no-man’s-land between the camps. (I’m here in the middle, taking shells from both sides.)
I’m saying that the ones who are pushing it, left or right, are not credible because they make their points by lying.
The scientists are not lying. The policy-makers may have not-so-hidden agendas, but the ones pushing against it are lying more. Example: Anthony Watts of wattsupwiththat is a paid agent of the Heartland Institute, hardly a non-partisan scientific organization. If the right thought this was a scientific dispute, they would be funding laboratories and supercomputers and satellites with side-looking scanners for vertical temperature profiling in the atmosphere. Instead they’re funding polemicists who didn’t even complete their undergrad. There is no science there.
(correct me if I’m wrong) what it amounted to was that the temperature record that they derived from the secondary data didn’t agree with the actual recorded temperatures for the years where these overlapped; so they substituted the recorded temperatures.
I thought I explained that already. The recorded temperatures ARE the temperatures; the problem is reconciling the proxies with measured temperatures (which are used to calibrate the proxies) since people started making thermometers and writing down their measurements. There’s a break in the tree-ring proxy measurements that’s due to higher CO2 in more recent years.
However, when you say something like “The difference between that and Earth’s current average temperature of 15°C (288K) is caused by the greenhouse effect”, you make me wonder. Even I, as a layman, know it’s not that simple. You’re completely ignoring the earth’s own radiation of geothermal heat and decomposing radioactive elements. Why are you doing that?
It’s because the 63 milliwatts/m^2 from geothermal heat is both negligible compared to solar input and has not changed significantly over the last several thousand years.
Direct human energy use is about 1/100 of 1% of incident sunlight. That’s clearly not able to change much on a global scale, but changing the radiation balance can.
I didn’t mean to get this far from HBD and race-realism, but if we’re ever going to get rid of the insanity in the US political system we have to… get rid of the insanity in the US political system. This means paying heed to science. ALL science. Not just when it doesn’t conflict with what we wish to be true, but ESPECIALLY when it does. The alignments of the two major US political camps have nothing to do with the truth so long as each reflexively defines itself as the opposite of the other everywhere a position has been staked out.
Mr. Rational,
Do you mean to suggest that the truth exists apart from our choice of belief?
Of course it does. Try “choosing” to nullify the effect of gravity on yourself through force of will and step off the roof of a tall building to go to one down the block. Truth will become apparent very quickly, regardless of your belief.
“FWIW, my IQ is somewhere in the neighborhood of 150. That doesn’t have squat to do with whether I’m right or not.”
I completely disagree. Your IQ has a lot to do with you being right. It doesn’t 100% prove you are right, which is why I’m disagreeing with you now when I don’t have an IQ in the neighbourhood of 150, but it’s an excellent heuristic. And I’d like to see people stop assuming someone is wrong in a debate if they use a heuristic that clearly suggests they are right but doesn’t provide iron-clad proof.
Smart people are far more likely to see the right answer to a complicated problem than stupid people are. Because smart people are good at thinking.
Looking at someone’s biases, knowledge, intelligence, and integrity is a good way of evaluating whether or not someone is right, without looking at the facts at all.
However, having seen some people’s attempts here, and on the far left, to evaluate other people’s biases and integrity, I have to say that people aren’t very good at it because of their own biases and lack of integrity. So I’m going to concede that QuOMPAP is often a problem.
Mr. Rational,
Dewey’s previous comment suggests he was being sarcastic, and is well aware of the existance of objective truth.
That was a good example, but believe it or not, there are people who would disagree with that. There are leftists who think that people are just so indoctrinated into believing in gravity that they only fall because they can’t imagine not falling. Conveniently they don’t think they are good enough to overcome that indoctrination themselves though, so they don’t try stepping off buildings. I’ve met some people like that.
BPWP, I’m sad to have to admit that high IQ isn’t the cure-all for crazy positions. As Michael Shermer wrote, “Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.”
High IQ devoted to the purpose of defending the dogma of the group through cherry-picking of facts, or to creating justifications for false positions and destructive policies, is worse than useless.
[...] by simply establishing the existence of such differences, one can shift the burden of proof in the debate about culpability, which has long been at the heart of the Race debate. The onus would be on ‘social [...]
“Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.”
Yep. I’m pretty far up the IQ curve. I was a Liberal for years. It takes a lot of effort and work, some involving DoubleThink to be a Liberal.
However, I was open to the evidence of my “lying eyes”. The Liberal “arguments” on immigration and gun control are what brought me around.
I notice the “fear” meme in the Donahue/Taylor thing. You always “fear” the immigrants you see. Donahue doesn’t ‘fear” them. Maybe because he won’t have to live near them.