|
On September 29 2013 18:39 Jek wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. I am sure all those stocktraders know the finer details of the science behind global warming. Come on, yes an intelligent person most likely will earn more money simply due to how the modern system is structured. But just as a carpenter most likely doesn't know how Itō calculus work, a rich person most likely does not understand how the extremely complex details of the global interactions in The Earth's ecosystem work. The scientists that actually know what they are talking about are a minority in the "rich-spectrum" of the population. I'd be more interested viewing how scientists in the related fields consider "the doomsaying about global warming" than what the random layman thinks.
Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly.
|
On September 29 2013 19:20 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 18:39 Jek wrote:On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. I am sure all those stocktraders know the finer details of the science behind global warming. Come on, yes an intelligent person most likely will earn more money simply due to how the modern system is structured. But just as a carpenter most likely doesn't know how Itō calculus work, a rich person most likely does not understand how the extremely complex details of the global interactions in The Earth's ecosystem work. The scientists that actually know what they are talking about are a minority in the "rich-spectrum" of the population. I'd be more interested viewing how scientists in the related fields consider "the doomsaying about global warming" than what the random layman thinks. Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly.
They are also good at holding on to their wealth. So if there was a choice that might cost them money I would assume they would be biased towards any other solution.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On September 29 2013 19:20 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 18:39 Jek wrote:On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. I am sure all those stocktraders know the finer details of the science behind global warming. Come on, yes an intelligent person most likely will earn more money simply due to how the modern system is structured. But just as a carpenter most likely doesn't know how Itō calculus work, a rich person most likely does not understand how the extremely complex details of the global interactions in The Earth's ecosystem work. The scientists that actually know what they are talking about are a minority in the "rich-spectrum" of the population. I'd be more interested viewing how scientists in the related fields consider "the doomsaying about global warming" than what the random layman thinks. Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly.
Seems somewhat of a double standard.
So scientists are susceptible to bias towards results that benefit their own interests. But at least they have to work in a regime of thinking that is designed to promote empirical analysis and combat these biases. The system may not be perfect, nor their adherence to it, but it does bound just how much their results can be affected by bias and still in the ballpark of scientific respectability.
Surely given the 2 possible hypothesis:
1. Rich people don't as a demographic believe in man-made global warning because they are intelligent and have too good of a grasp of empirical analysis to fall for doomsaying.
2. Rich people don't want drastic changes that may upset their privileged position, and are therefore likely to be biased against climate science because it espouses said big changes.
Surely, given that you believe climate scientists are more driven by their bias than how compelling the data and models they have are. Then given the same standards, the former hypothesis would look vanishingly unlikely compared to the latter. Considering they have on average, more to gain(or lose), and less training in empirical analytical methods.
On another note, it would be interesting if there were information on the opinions of the non-climate science, scientific community as a demographic. As they would have both the technical capabilities for extracting information from data, as well as assumedly less bias either way.
|
On September 29 2013 19:29 Vorenius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 19:20 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 18:39 Jek wrote:On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. I am sure all those stocktraders know the finer details of the science behind global warming. Come on, yes an intelligent person most likely will earn more money simply due to how the modern system is structured. But just as a carpenter most likely doesn't know how Itō calculus work, a rich person most likely does not understand how the extremely complex details of the global interactions in The Earth's ecosystem work. The scientists that actually know what they are talking about are a minority in the "rich-spectrum" of the population. I'd be more interested viewing how scientists in the related fields consider "the doomsaying about global warming" than what the random layman thinks. Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly. They are also good at holding on to their wealth. So if there was a choice that might cost them money I would assume they would be biased towards any other solution.
A false dichotomy. The best solution for mankind in this case will also save the most money. If the thermocalypse is true the financial damages will be immense.
On September 29 2013 19:33 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
2. Rich people don't want drastic changes that may upset their privileged position, and are therefore likely to be biased against climate science because it espouses said big changes.
Rich people don't want drastic changes... therefore they are willing to knowingly let the Earth's ecosystem change so drastically it will surely destroy the economy, could cause massive starvation and civil unrest, or even wipe out life on Earth as we know it?
Do you think they are so cartoonishly evil they are willing to sacrifice their wealth just to destroy the Earth?
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On September 29 2013 19:59 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 19:29 Vorenius wrote:On September 29 2013 19:20 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 18:39 Jek wrote:On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. I am sure all those stocktraders know the finer details of the science behind global warming. Come on, yes an intelligent person most likely will earn more money simply due to how the modern system is structured. But just as a carpenter most likely doesn't know how Itō calculus work, a rich person most likely does not understand how the extremely complex details of the global interactions in The Earth's ecosystem work. The scientists that actually know what they are talking about are a minority in the "rich-spectrum" of the population. I'd be more interested viewing how scientists in the related fields consider "the doomsaying about global warming" than what the random layman thinks. Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly. They are also good at holding on to their wealth. So if there was a choice that might cost them money I would assume they would be biased towards any other solution. A false dichotomy. The best solution for mankind in this case will also save the most money. If the thermocalypse is true the financial damages will be immense. Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 19:33 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
2. Rich people don't want drastic changes that may upset their privileged position, and are therefore likely to be biased against climate science because it espouses said big changes.
Rich people don't want drastic changes... therefore they are willing to knowingly let the Earth's ecosystem change so drastically it will surely destroy the economy, could cause massive starvation and civil unrest, or even wipe out life on Earth as we know it? Do you think they are so cartoonishly evil they are willing to sacrifice their wealth just to destroy the Earth?
I didn't say they didn't want drastic changes, I said they don't want drastic changes that may upset their privileged position.
Being people with considerable wealth, they are most in a position to adapt to whatever changes/problems that prop up (eg by just moving to a less affected area).
I don't think they are evil at all, just selfish. Because lets face it, we can tiptoe around the issue all we want, but at the end of the day what is being proposed IS a redistribution of wealth away from the wealthy into a problem that might affect all of us, but will hit the poor harder and more immediately.
The de facto redistribution of wealth is being proposed because the first nations/people to feel the effects of global warming, if it happens as climate scientists are proposing, do not themselves have enough resources and influence, economic or otherwise, to address the problems themselves. Consequently, resources from those who have them, and also coincidently are less immediately affected are required to tackle the problem.
Unless you believe climate scientists don't themselves believe that man-made climate change is a big issue, in which case thats not cognitive bias, thats flat out fruad.
Otherwise, the same principle applies here. If the climate scientists genuinely believe in man-made climate change because of the bias that comes about because of their own self interest, then the rich genuinely don't believe (demographically speaking) in man-made climate change because they are biased not to do so by their own self interest.
The difference is that scientists as a profession have both training and a professional obligation to adhere, to the best of their abilities to empirical analysis, whereas the wealthy demographic have no such compunction.
|
On September 29 2013 10:27 Taf the Ghost wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 09:56 ZeaL. wrote:On September 29 2013 09:33 -VapidSlug- wrote:On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years.
Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller.
I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. How do people ignore this fact that there has been no warming for almost a couple decades? Of course, when there IS a single warmer year or 2 less inches of snow, all of the "scientists" are there to make it the highlight of their climate change careers, but a quarter of a century of cooling could happen and its chalked up as anecdotal "weather, not climate." In the 70's it was global cooling and inevitable ice age so we all die from starvation, in the 90s it was global warming and... less ice around and Al Gore's beachfront property might be destroyed? Neither of those ended up happening so now it's "climate change." I wish I could simply change words and entire definitions every time I was wrong. To me, the ramblings involving CO2 and carbon (yeah, they are quite a bit different but over the last 10 years have been 1984'd into interchangeable terms) all look like they came out of a cheap B-movie. ![[image loading]](http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif) So you throw out a bunch of talking points and wonder "how do people ignore something that has been shown to be incorrect a billion times over"? It's pretty telling usually when people criticize professionals in their field using "common sense" and conspiracy theories... Pretty much no one who has taken the time to pore over the research methods and data global warming researchers use for their analyses comes to a different conclusion. I'm not a climatologist or a meteorologist. I am however, an evolutionary biologist and have endured all sorts of shit from ignorant folks so I sympathize greatly with climate researchers. The people who think there is some crazy conspiracy theory to have "big government" carry out some nefarious scheme simply haven't been around science enough to know that the logistics would have to be insanely complex for that to occur. Oh, this is just WAY too easy that I have to needle on this one. So, you're apparently a paid scientist and yet you linked a.... Trough to Peak graph without confidence intervals. I'm not sure if I should be so cruel as to toss a "Irreducibility!" at you or not, but if you wonder why the responses to these types of reports went from everyone going all Chicken Little to "Eh, no one cares" (which is about how this one went, actually), that's a good reason why. Now, Trough to Peak is a great way to sell Stocks, Bonds or get Investor funding, but it's a terrible way to make an argument. And you know better. I was going to type something up in response to others, but I'll just sum up the point here. The Data sets are still terrible, the models are all over the place, the scientists have encouraged the Media to use "Climate Change" as a boogeyman more than any possible reality, and the ideas that are pushed for are something right out of Soviet Central Planning from 1935. This is why the next report might not even make the news, because no one is even going to care. This isn't the first time it's happened in Science and it won't be the last. Yet there are still massive problems, world wide, that need to be addressed and this doesn't help those one bit. But, hey, a few people got to hold a press conference, right?
So which is it? The graph is deliberately misleading because it is trough to peak or the data is all bunk?
This is again, the kind of dismissive bullshit that deniers throw out, one sentence about "sciencey" stuff and the rest about how its all bunk, and how the the big evil "media" or "government" is pushing something for some nefarious gain. Yeah, the models are all bunk and the data are all terrible. Good job there, you sound like you've done your research. Care to go more in-depth than that or is that how much attention you've given the issue?
So care to elaborate on the last time scientists pushed the media to publicize a "boogeyman" for their personal gain? Somehow all the scientists have to get together and push for a common goal.... while the average post-doc climatologist is getting paid sub 50k and stands to gain so much more from talking about how weather change is wrong (book deals, regular interviews in the media, speaking fees) vs just being one of many who are pushing the media to publicize that boogeyman.
|
On September 29 2013 17:19 Incognoto wrote:
The more I hear about global warming, the more skeptical I am about it.
Compare how much water vapor there is the atmosphere to how much CO2 there is. Next, realize that water vapor is a more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2 is. Finally, think about things such as the Ice Age of the Cretaceous period. The planet's climate changes quite a lot on its own.
Even if the human race has released a considerable amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, is it really enough to change the climate over the course of ~100 years? Hard to say..
It's hard to say in the sense that you need thorough studies to answer the question. But those studies have been done. They've shown the answer is yes. How about reading the IPCC report?
|
On September 29 2013 21:08 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 17:19 Incognoto wrote:
The more I hear about global warming, the more skeptical I am about it.
Compare how much water vapor there is the atmosphere to how much CO2 there is. Next, realize that water vapor is a more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2 is. Finally, think about things such as the Ice Age of the Cretaceous period. The planet's climate changes quite a lot on its own.
Even if the human race has released a considerable amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, is it really enough to change the climate over the course of ~100 years? Hard to say.. It's hard to say in the sense that you need thorough studies to answer the question. But those studies have been done. They've shown the answer is yes. How about reading the IPCC report?
To add to this:
1) Water vapor and CO2 are both well known to trap heat. That fact was probably discovered by a climatologist. Do you think that the climatologists who discovered that fact forgot about it? Anyways, just because one is greater in magnitude doesn't mean anything, especially if the greater one is relatively stable. If you have a tub of water with 10 liters of water in it, and you add 1 liter of oil to it, is the volume going to stay the same just because the oil is in the minority?
2) Climate changes naturally. Yes. That's not the current question. The question is, is the current rate of change due in part to human influence?
|
On September 29 2013 20:29 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 19:59 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 19:29 Vorenius wrote:On September 29 2013 19:20 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 18:39 Jek wrote:On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. I am sure all those stocktraders know the finer details of the science behind global warming. Come on, yes an intelligent person most likely will earn more money simply due to how the modern system is structured. But just as a carpenter most likely doesn't know how Itō calculus work, a rich person most likely does not understand how the extremely complex details of the global interactions in The Earth's ecosystem work. The scientists that actually know what they are talking about are a minority in the "rich-spectrum" of the population. I'd be more interested viewing how scientists in the related fields consider "the doomsaying about global warming" than what the random layman thinks. Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly. They are also good at holding on to their wealth. So if there was a choice that might cost them money I would assume they would be biased towards any other solution. A false dichotomy. The best solution for mankind in this case will also save the most money. If the thermocalypse is true the financial damages will be immense. On September 29 2013 19:33 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
2. Rich people don't want drastic changes that may upset their privileged position, and are therefore likely to be biased against climate science because it espouses said big changes.
Rich people don't want drastic changes... therefore they are willing to knowingly let the Earth's ecosystem change so drastically it will surely destroy the economy, could cause massive starvation and civil unrest, or even wipe out life on Earth as we know it? Do you think they are so cartoonishly evil they are willing to sacrifice their wealth just to destroy the Earth? I didn't say they didn't want drastic changes, I said they don't want drastic changes that may upset their privileged position. Being people with considerable wealth, they are most in a position to adapt to whatever changes/problems that prop up (eg by just moving to a less affected area). I don't think they are evil at all, just selfish. Because lets face it, we can tiptoe around the issue all we want, but at the end of the day what is being proposed IS a redistribution of wealth away from the wealthy into a problem that might affect all of us, but will hit the poor harder and more immediately. The de facto redistribution of wealth is being proposed because the first nations/people to feel the effects of global warming, if it happens as climate scientists are proposing, do not themselves have enough resources and influence, economic or otherwise, to address the problems themselves. Consequently, resources from those who have them, and also coincidently are less immediately affected are required to tackle the problem. Unless you believe climate scientists don't themselves believe that man-made climate change is a big issue, in which case thats not cognitive bias, thats flat out fruad. Otherwise, the same principle applies here. If the climate scientists genuinely believe in man-made climate change because of the bias that comes about because of their own self interest, then the rich genuinely don't believe (demographically speaking) in man-made climate change because they are biased not to do so by their own self interest. The difference is that scientists as a profession have both training and a professional obligation to adhere, to the best of their abilities to empirical analysis, whereas the wealthy demographic have no such compunction.
When comparing the costs of mitigation to the cost of adaptation, nobody is suggesting we leave developing countries high and dry. Even if we wanted to abandon them, international business would suffer financial harm from doing so.
The relative share of these costs paid by the wealthy will not change either way. The absolute amount of costs might be different, but there's no reason to suspect that wealthy people will be able to avoid their "fair share" (so-to-speak) of the financial burden caused by global warming if it comes to pass.
Wealthy people are not short sighted buffoons. In fact they tend to value hypothetical future profits more than money right now. This is called time preference, and more intelligent and wealthier people tend to think farther in the future.
Using occams razor as a guide I think the most reasonable conclusion is that wealthy people would certainly act to avoid a financial catastrophe caused by global warming if they thought that scenario were plausible. Polls showing they consider it a relative non-issue indicate only that they are skeptical, not that they are uncaring.
|
On September 29 2013 19:59 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 19:29 Vorenius wrote:On September 29 2013 19:20 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 18:39 Jek wrote:On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. I am sure all those stocktraders know the finer details of the science behind global warming. Come on, yes an intelligent person most likely will earn more money simply due to how the modern system is structured. But just as a carpenter most likely doesn't know how Itō calculus work, a rich person most likely does not understand how the extremely complex details of the global interactions in The Earth's ecosystem work. The scientists that actually know what they are talking about are a minority in the "rich-spectrum" of the population. I'd be more interested viewing how scientists in the related fields consider "the doomsaying about global warming" than what the random layman thinks. Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly. They are also good at holding on to their wealth. So if there was a choice that might cost them money I would assume they would be biased towards any other solution. A false dichotomy. The best solution for mankind in this case will also save the most money. If the thermocalypse is true the financial damages will be immense. Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 19:33 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
2. Rich people don't want drastic changes that may upset their privileged position, and are therefore likely to be biased against climate science because it espouses said big changes.
Rich people don't want drastic changes... therefore they are willing to knowingly let the Earth's ecosystem change so drastically it will surely destroy the economy, could cause massive starvation and civil unrest, or even wipe out life on Earth as we know it? Do you think they are so cartoonishly evil they are willing to sacrifice their wealth just to destroy the Earth?
You're misrepresenting what doubleupgrade said. He was talking about bias. He's applying the exact same thought process that you've directed at climatologists at the "rich people". Have you been painting climatologists as cartoonishly evil do you think?
I'm also curious about your argument that rich people are more intelligent than poor people. Could you define intelligence for me please.
|
On September 29 2013 21:57 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 20:29 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On September 29 2013 19:59 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 19:29 Vorenius wrote:On September 29 2013 19:20 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 18:39 Jek wrote:On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. I am sure all those stocktraders know the finer details of the science behind global warming. Come on, yes an intelligent person most likely will earn more money simply due to how the modern system is structured. But just as a carpenter most likely doesn't know how Itō calculus work, a rich person most likely does not understand how the extremely complex details of the global interactions in The Earth's ecosystem work. The scientists that actually know what they are talking about are a minority in the "rich-spectrum" of the population. I'd be more interested viewing how scientists in the related fields consider "the doomsaying about global warming" than what the random layman thinks. Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly. They are also good at holding on to their wealth. So if there was a choice that might cost them money I would assume they would be biased towards any other solution. A false dichotomy. The best solution for mankind in this case will also save the most money. If the thermocalypse is true the financial damages will be immense. On September 29 2013 19:33 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
2. Rich people don't want drastic changes that may upset their privileged position, and are therefore likely to be biased against climate science because it espouses said big changes.
Rich people don't want drastic changes... therefore they are willing to knowingly let the Earth's ecosystem change so drastically it will surely destroy the economy, could cause massive starvation and civil unrest, or even wipe out life on Earth as we know it? Do you think they are so cartoonishly evil they are willing to sacrifice their wealth just to destroy the Earth? I didn't say they didn't want drastic changes, I said they don't want drastic changes that may upset their privileged position. Being people with considerable wealth, they are most in a position to adapt to whatever changes/problems that prop up (eg by just moving to a less affected area). I don't think they are evil at all, just selfish. Because lets face it, we can tiptoe around the issue all we want, but at the end of the day what is being proposed IS a redistribution of wealth away from the wealthy into a problem that might affect all of us, but will hit the poor harder and more immediately. The de facto redistribution of wealth is being proposed because the first nations/people to feel the effects of global warming, if it happens as climate scientists are proposing, do not themselves have enough resources and influence, economic or otherwise, to address the problems themselves. Consequently, resources from those who have them, and also coincidently are less immediately affected are required to tackle the problem. Unless you believe climate scientists don't themselves believe that man-made climate change is a big issue, in which case thats not cognitive bias, thats flat out fruad. Otherwise, the same principle applies here. If the climate scientists genuinely believe in man-made climate change because of the bias that comes about because of their own self interest, then the rich genuinely don't believe (demographically speaking) in man-made climate change because they are biased not to do so by their own self interest. The difference is that scientists as a profession have both training and a professional obligation to adhere, to the best of their abilities to empirical analysis, whereas the wealthy demographic have no such compunction. When comparing the costs of mitigation to the cost of adaptation, nobody is suggesting we leave developing countries high and dry. Even if we wanted to abandon them, international business would suffer financial harm from doing so. The relative share of these costs paid by the wealthy will not change either way. The absolute amount of costs might be different, but there's no reason to suspect that wealthy people will be able to avoid their "fair share" (so-to-speak) of the financial burden caused by global warming if it comes to pass. Wealthy people are not short sighted buffoons. In fact they tend to value hypothetical future profits more than money right now. This is called time preference, and more intelligent and wealthier people tend to think farther in the future. Using occams razor as a guide I think the most reasonable conclusion is that wealthy people would certainly act to avoid a financial catastrophe caused by global warming if they thought that scenario were plausible. Polls showing they consider it a relative non-issue indicate only that they are skeptical, not that they are uncaring.
Could you provide some evidence pertaining to the cost of mitigation vs. the costs of adaption please. You seem to take it as a given that the former is more expensive.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On September 29 2013 22:09 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 19:59 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 19:29 Vorenius wrote:On September 29 2013 19:20 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 18:39 Jek wrote:On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. I am sure all those stocktraders know the finer details of the science behind global warming. Come on, yes an intelligent person most likely will earn more money simply due to how the modern system is structured. But just as a carpenter most likely doesn't know how Itō calculus work, a rich person most likely does not understand how the extremely complex details of the global interactions in The Earth's ecosystem work. The scientists that actually know what they are talking about are a minority in the "rich-spectrum" of the population. I'd be more interested viewing how scientists in the related fields consider "the doomsaying about global warming" than what the random layman thinks. Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly. They are also good at holding on to their wealth. So if there was a choice that might cost them money I would assume they would be biased towards any other solution. A false dichotomy. The best solution for mankind in this case will also save the most money. If the thermocalypse is true the financial damages will be immense. On September 29 2013 19:33 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
2. Rich people don't want drastic changes that may upset their privileged position, and are therefore likely to be biased against climate science because it espouses said big changes.
Rich people don't want drastic changes... therefore they are willing to knowingly let the Earth's ecosystem change so drastically it will surely destroy the economy, could cause massive starvation and civil unrest, or even wipe out life on Earth as we know it? Do you think they are so cartoonishly evil they are willing to sacrifice their wealth just to destroy the Earth? You're misrepresenting what doubleupgrade said. He was talking about bias. He's applying the exact same thought process that you've directed at climatologists at the "rich people". Have you been painting climatologists as cartoonishly evil do you think? I'm also curious about your argument that rich people are more intelligent than poor people. Could you define intelligence for me please.
Basically that.
I'm not saying that the wealthy believe, but choose to ignore, climate change because they are selfish. I'm saying that they are predispositioned to, and indeed do disbelieve climate change because they are selfish (eg they would bear a disproportionate portion of the cost of addressing the issue).
If you propose that climate scientists suffer a cognitive bias towards interpreting climate data/models to confirming man made climate change, then surely, applying the same principle to the wealthy, they would suffer a cognitive bias against that confirmation, since it's obviously better (not only absolutely, but also relatively) for them if it weren't a problem than if it were.
Unless you are somehow proposing that the wealthy, as a demographic are less prone to the same cognitive bias than climate scientists as a demographic, which I think would be a difficult case to make.
|
It's important to question the consensus of the scientific community and ask if they have a blind spot. That doesn't give you a free pass to behave like a creationist and reject their conclusions and their expertise outright on only the flimsiest and most suspect of grounds.
Some of the arguments being put forward by denialists are just unparalleled in their dishonesty. The latest one by Fox, for instance, that the report contains "nine publications produced in part or wholly by the WWF". No mention that over 6,000 peer-reviewed studies are cited and the conclusion of the IPCC doesn't hinge on any particular nine of them. Or that Fox is always using research carried out by "activist" groups such as right-wing think tanks who receive their funding from oil companies.
|
On September 29 2013 19:20 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 18:39 Jek wrote:On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. I am sure all those stocktraders know the finer details of the science behind global warming. Come on, yes an intelligent person most likely will earn more money simply due to how the modern system is structured. But just as a carpenter most likely doesn't know how Itō calculus work, a rich person most likely does not understand how the extremely complex details of the global interactions in The Earth's ecosystem work. The scientists that actually know what they are talking about are a minority in the "rich-spectrum" of the population. I'd be more interested viewing how scientists in the related fields consider "the doomsaying about global warming" than what the random layman thinks. Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly. The other side of the coin is that wealthy people better at lying and are more selfish and ruthless on average than poorer people. Their profession teaches them to hoard and to work for their own gain at the expense of other people, whereas the scientists are taught to value intellectual honesty and they're trained in a methodology for seeking the truth that is the best the human species have ever discovered.
As I say, that's the other way of looking at it. The truth always lies in between, but I'll wager that my version comes a lot closer than your preposterous "Rich people are too smart for climate change" hypothesis.
|
On September 29 2013 22:09 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 19:59 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 19:29 Vorenius wrote:On September 29 2013 19:20 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 18:39 Jek wrote:On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. I am sure all those stocktraders know the finer details of the science behind global warming. Come on, yes an intelligent person most likely will earn more money simply due to how the modern system is structured. But just as a carpenter most likely doesn't know how Itō calculus work, a rich person most likely does not understand how the extremely complex details of the global interactions in The Earth's ecosystem work. The scientists that actually know what they are talking about are a minority in the "rich-spectrum" of the population. I'd be more interested viewing how scientists in the related fields consider "the doomsaying about global warming" than what the random layman thinks. Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly. They are also good at holding on to their wealth. So if there was a choice that might cost them money I would assume they would be biased towards any other solution. A false dichotomy. The best solution for mankind in this case will also save the most money. If the thermocalypse is true the financial damages will be immense. On September 29 2013 19:33 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
2. Rich people don't want drastic changes that may upset their privileged position, and are therefore likely to be biased against climate science because it espouses said big changes.
Rich people don't want drastic changes... therefore they are willing to knowingly let the Earth's ecosystem change so drastically it will surely destroy the economy, could cause massive starvation and civil unrest, or even wipe out life on Earth as we know it? Do you think they are so cartoonishly evil they are willing to sacrifice their wealth just to destroy the Earth? You're misrepresenting what doubleupgrade said. He was talking about bias. He's applying the exact same thought process that you've directed at climatologists at the "rich people". Have you been painting climatologists as cartoonishly evil do you think? I'm also curious about your argument that rich people are more intelligent than poor people. Could you define intelligence for me please.
I don't recall directing anything at climatologists at all. This entire tangent was sparked by someone who claimed people in developing countries care more about the environment than Westerners, which is so bizarrely inaccurate it almost made my eyes pop out of my head. To justify his claim he then linked a poll showing people who earn over $1,000,000 consider global warming to not be an issue.
How millionaires became representative of all westerners I am not sure. How he made the logical leap from not an issue to serious issue, but don't care is another problem I am struggling to understand.
I now suspect he was just trying to frame the argument in emotional terms (good vs. evil) rather than trying to raise any serious point for discussion. And by now we are way off track.
Everyone is biased. I like the adage "actions speak louder than words". If wealthy people think global warming is a threat their actions certainly don't indicate that. If advocates for a carbon tax like Al Gore (also wealthy, but I digress) think global warming is a threat, their actions don't indicate that either. I myself will start to take this issue seriously when Al Gore et al show they themselves take it seriously by sacrificing some of their own wealth and/or jetsetting lifestyle. After all, surely giving up a bit of their money or modern conveniences would be a small sacrifice to save the world? Their actions suggest they only seek profit and the claims of environmental disaster are an avenue to such profits.
|
the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel.
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/
“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979.
Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/68ihdOp.png)
As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. "
The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported
|
It's a pretty sad thing about our culture that this stuff even needs to be said. I don't recall reading about Einstein and Oppenheimer from their Fortune 500 profiles.
Is it weird that people with high intellects enjoy intellectual-pursuits more than the pursuit of wealth? No, it's logical.
Just as it's logical that the people with the most comprehensive knowledge about the climate would be climatologists, not the CEOs of auto and oil industries.
|
On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported
Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people.
From your own article:
Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.php
And as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion:
So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence.
Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument.
|
On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Show nested quote +Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. Show nested quote +The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.php And as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument.
Oh but I didn't read the thread or that post, I read this post from you:
On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly.
|
On September 30 2013 00:21 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.phpAnd as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument. Oh but I didn't read the thread or that post, I read this post from you: Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Wealthy people are good at understanding when someone is trying to swindle them. Their opinions shouldn't be brushed aside so quickly.
A simple misunderstanding. No worries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
