|
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?
They are mostly not evil. They are just have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Most wealthy people have no idea about statistics and climatology, why should I care what they think ? They will and have in the past let events perspire that caused massive economic problems, starvation and civil unrest. Not necessarily because they are so evil, but because as most singular humans they are slaves to their biases, self-delusions and steep discounting of the far enough future. And are terrible at predicting consequences of their actions.
|
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.
generally people doing better in the economy also value the current generation and current success over that of future generations. it makes sense why they wouldn't like global warming.
|
On September 30 2013 00:36 mcc wrote:
as most singular humans they are slaves to their biases, self-delusions and steep discounting of the far enough future. And are terrible at predicting consequences of their actions.
Thank Science we have men of the cloth who are above all those human foibles.
|
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.
Time discounting is not infinite. Even in people most willing to delay gratification it is far below the scale of generations. And what you say applies to scientists even more than to wealthy people, especially considering that they are the more intelligent and knowledgable group. The second attribute being much more important in complex scenarios where even the most intelligent person without knowledge is useless in predicting.
|
On September 30 2013 00:25 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 00:21 FallDownMarigold wrote: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: ![[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 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: 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.
No problem. I'll also add that the correlation between IQ and income is hardly strong enough to make a convincing claim that those with higher incomes are likely to have significantly better capacity to comprehend climate change and everything that follows from it. The correlation between IQ and income may exist but it is not strong and any argument relying on it is by default very weak.
Consider what would happen to earnings if IQ were all that mattered. If income was distributed solely according to differences in IQ, then a far less asymmetric distribution of income would be expected than we now have. Many more people would earn close to the national mean, and far fewer would earn at either of the extremes. In a recent econometric analysis, Dickens, Kane, and Schultze (1995) showed that if IQ were equated among all people and only nonintellective variables were allowed to vary (e.g., parental SES and motivation), then the resultant income distribution would resemble the one we now have. Conversely, if all nonintellective differences were equated and income was distributed solely in accordance with differences in IQ scores, then a far more egalitarian income distribution would be observed than the one we now have.
Another way to think about this is to compare the incomes of those who possess the top 10% of IQs with the incomes of those who possess the top 10% of wages. The incomes of those with the top 10% of IQs in Herrnstein and Murray's (1994) National Longitudinal Survey of Youth sample earned 55% more than average- IQ persons earned. In contrast, the top 10% of wage earners in this same sample earned 200% more than the average person earned! Hence, the proportion of the variation in income that can be explained on the basis of variation in IQ is actually rather small. In fact, income varies much more because of non-IQ differences than because of IQ differences, leading one team of economists to remark, "If all that mattered was [IQ] scores, U.S. society would clearly be very egalitarian. Eliminating differences due to IQ would have little effect on the overall level of inequality" (Dickens et al., 1995, p. 20).
http://136.167.2.220/content/dam/files/schools/cas_sites/psych/pdf/critique_income_.pdf
|
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.
I highly doubt that the studies of income and intelligence cover in any significant way people earning 1mln and more. I also highly doubt that they are on average smarter than people let's say earning 250k - 1mln. If you have any such evidence I would love to see it.
|
On September 30 2013 00:46 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 00:25 Zaqwe wrote:On September 30 2013 00:21 FallDownMarigold wrote: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: 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. No problem. I'll also add that the correlation between IQ and income is hardly strong enough to make a convincing claim that those with higher incomes are likely to have significantly better capacity to comprehend climate change and everything that follows from it. The correlation between IQ and income may exist but it is not strong and any argument relying on it is by default very weak. Show nested quote +Consider what would happen to earnings if IQ were all that mattered. If income was distributed solely according to differences in IQ, then a far less asymmetric distribution of income would be expected than we now have. Many more people would earn close to the national mean, and far fewer would earn at either of the extremes. In a recent econometric analysis, Dickens, Kane, and Schultze (1995) showed that if IQ were equated among all people and only nonintellective variables were allowed to vary (e.g., parental SES and motivation), then the resultant income distribution would resemble the one we now have. Conversely, if all nonintellective differences were equated and income was distributed solely in accordance with differences in IQ scores, then a far more egalitarian income distribution would be observed than the one we now have.
Another way to think about this is to compare the incomes of those who possess the top 10% of IQs with the incomes of those who possess the top 10% of wages. The incomes of those with the top 10% of IQs in Herrnstein and Murray's (1994) National Longitudinal Survey of Youth sample earned 55% more than average- IQ persons earned. In contrast, the top 10% of wage earners in this same sample earned 200% more than the average person earned! Hence, the proportion of the variation in income that can be explained on the basis of variation in IQ is actually rather small. In fact, income varies much more because of non-IQ differences than because of IQ differences, leading one team of economists to remark, "If all that mattered was [IQ] scores, U.S. society would clearly be very egalitarian. Eliminating differences due to IQ would have little effect on the overall level of inequality" (Dickens et al., 1995, p. 20). http://136.167.2.220/content/dam/files/schools/cas_sites/psych/pdf/critique_income_.pdf
The misunderstanding was yours, friend.
I will reiterate:
Those with higher IQ scores tended to get paid more than others. 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. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.php
Your own agree with what I have said. You are the one who came in here trying to create strawmen by using the word "robust" when I only said "somewhat". You are the one who is wrong.
|
On September 30 2013 00:43 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 00:36 mcc wrote:
as most singular humans they are slaves to their biases, self-delusions and steep discounting of the far enough future. And are terrible at predicting consequences of their actions. Thank Science we have men of the cloth who are above all those human foibles.
Nope scientists are also in that category. Should have actually used all, instead of most. But as for the issue we are discussing, scientists are much more qualified to talk about and more likely to be correct. All thanks to the fact that I specifically used word "singular". Science and similar collaborative efforts can actually minimize the biases and self-delusions if they are well-designed. Science has shown historically to be well-designed system.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1281 Posts
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.
I think it's safe to say for those earning above 1 mill, they are the exception to the rule, given that almost certainly not working in a profession (and therefore not earning income via the same mechanism as most people) as they are likely to be CEOs/managerial/executive positions or entrepreneurs, as opposed to the professions. And outliers to these demographics even so.
Given that $1,000,000 is going to be at least $800,000 above what people get as a salary/wage from even very high paying jobs, and at the rate of $700 per point of IQ(just to be extra conservative), thats still over 1000 IQ points of difference if we were to go by that rule. That's over 70 standard deviations above not just the norm but pretty much the highest paying professional jobs.
I think it's clear that people earning over 1 million a year are clearly not going to conform to this correlation. Given that IQ, by design is normally distributed with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, being 70 standard deviations above the norm is clearly ridiculous (You'd be one in a number that is is ludicrously larger than the number of people that have ever existed, to compare, a mere 7 standard deviations puts you as 1 in ~780billion, and your obviously just testing the limits of whatever IQ test your taking).
They might well be intelligent people, but given that this demographic would be heavily slated towards CEOs, actors, sportsmen etc, and given the ludicrous IQs (which I'm fairly sure no test can could even yield) that the correlation would require, it's fair to say these are the outliers, and not just the top end of the bell curve.
Given the alternative is that the rule says that the odds of even 1 person earning more than $1,000,000 is astronomically low, the odds of 2 such people existing is as physicists would glibly put it: On average you would need to wait much longer than the expected age of the universe to observe this event.
|
On September 30 2013 00:59 mcc wrote:
But as for the issue we are discussing, scientists are much more qualified to talk about and more likely to be correct.
If we are keeping score it seems skeptics have been correct and climatologists wrong over most of the short term predictions.
The skeptics are more likely to be correct judging by their track record.
|
On September 29 2013 09:11 YumYumGranola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:On September 29 2013 06:06 JinDesu wrote:
If temperature increase wasn't manmade, but would cause climate changes that could affect billions around the world, I think we would still investigate into how to revert or counteract that increase. It'd be silly otherwise. Its 0.6 degrees Celsius over 100 years, I mean if you think that is end of the world type stuff you are absurdist, we've had 2 degrees Celsius warmer in the medieval period and humans thrived, it was the golden age of mankind and there was plentiful of everything, food was in abundance, you name. Golden period on earth for humans. With today technology and adaptability that we have we can deal with pretty much +5 or -5 increase/decrease in temperatures, the truth is its not getting warmer or colder, the temperature is in constant flux and is within its completely normal and natural bounds to go +/- 3 degree Celsius. 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. Wow, it's like you were trying to fit every single nonsensical, already disproved climate denier argument into a single post. If only you'd gotten the whole "CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around" you'd have hit the whole cavalcade of "things I believe only because I don't bother to check facts". It's amazing to me that so many people on the denier side of this argument are SO SURE that they're being lied to by the general scientific community, and yet they will unquestioningly believe the most ridiculous things. I'm not sure if irony is the right word to describe it, but it feels like it is.
0.6 degrees Celsius is the alarmist own data, The medieval warm period is the alarmist own data, cosmic rays, sun spots, the rest are all major factors, I mean we don't live in a vacuum and the vacuum is in a box and so the sun which creates the climate on earth, that creates the seasons, that creates day and night has no effect on how warm it is. I mean its insane, its insane to not include the sun as a cause is the minuscule, slight 0.6 degrees warming.
Its like saying the moon is made out of cheese, its like saying trees don't need water to grow, its absurd.
0.030% is the amount of change the carbon we've released would have on the global CO2 levels and I'm actually adding out of thin air more just to round it out to bring it to 0.1%. All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet.
There is overall 0.0380 CO2 in the atmosphere, its not even a factor of overall elements on earth. How can about 0.030 of carbon that we've released to an already miniscule amount have any effects on the global temperatures? It is absolutely insane to think there is.
|
On September 30 2013 00:54 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 00:46 FallDownMarigold wrote:On September 30 2013 00:25 Zaqwe wrote:On September 30 2013 00:21 FallDownMarigold wrote: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: 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. No problem. I'll also add that the correlation between IQ and income is hardly strong enough to make a convincing claim that those with higher incomes are likely to have significantly better capacity to comprehend climate change and everything that follows from it. The correlation between IQ and income may exist but it is not strong and any argument relying on it is by default very weak. Consider what would happen to earnings if IQ were all that mattered. If income was distributed solely according to differences in IQ, then a far less asymmetric distribution of income would be expected than we now have. Many more people would earn close to the national mean, and far fewer would earn at either of the extremes. In a recent econometric analysis, Dickens, Kane, and Schultze (1995) showed that if IQ were equated among all people and only nonintellective variables were allowed to vary (e.g., parental SES and motivation), then the resultant income distribution would resemble the one we now have. Conversely, if all nonintellective differences were equated and income was distributed solely in accordance with differences in IQ scores, then a far more egalitarian income distribution would be observed than the one we now have.
Another way to think about this is to compare the incomes of those who possess the top 10% of IQs with the incomes of those who possess the top 10% of wages. The incomes of those with the top 10% of IQs in Herrnstein and Murray's (1994) National Longitudinal Survey of Youth sample earned 55% more than average- IQ persons earned. In contrast, the top 10% of wage earners in this same sample earned 200% more than the average person earned! Hence, the proportion of the variation in income that can be explained on the basis of variation in IQ is actually rather small. In fact, income varies much more because of non-IQ differences than because of IQ differences, leading one team of economists to remark, "If all that mattered was [IQ] scores, U.S. society would clearly be very egalitarian. Eliminating differences due to IQ would have little effect on the overall level of inequality" (Dickens et al., 1995, p. 20). http://136.167.2.220/content/dam/files/schools/cas_sites/psych/pdf/critique_income_.pdf The misunderstanding was yours, friend. I will reiterate: Your own agree with what I have said. You are the one who came in here trying to create strawmen by using the word "robust" when I only said "somewhat". You are the one who is wrong.
This is some top notch foolery. I'll end it here:
1) There is no correlation between IQ and wealth
2) There is a small, tenuous correlation between IQ and income
3) Any argument made on the basis of the correlation between income and IQ, or worse, between wealth and IQ, is weak
4) Your various statements alluding to the rich, the high income people, or the wealthy being more capable with regard to understanding and making decisions about climate change, are weak
|
On September 30 2013 01:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
This is some top notch foolery. I'll end it here:
1) There is no correlation between IQ and wealth
Again, this was a misunderstanding on your part. The discussion was never about "wealth" in the sense of how much savings people have at various levels of income. I used the word "wealthy" in reference to a group of people we were discussing who have incomes over $1,000,000/year. I think it is fair to call people earning that much "wealthy", though I can see how you misinterpreted it.
I don't really see how you are still misinterpreting it though. How odd.
On September 30 2013 01:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
2) There is a small, tenuous correlation between IQ and income
There is a significant correlation between IQ and income, strong enough to draw conclusions such as "each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year" from. And more than strong enough to support every statement I have said. I actually understated the correlation when I said "somewhat" because I didn't want to start any petty and stupid arguments.
On September 30 2013 01:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
3) Any argument made on the basis of the correlation between income and IQ, or worse, between wealth and IQ, is weak
Any argument made on the basis of your own misunderstanding is weaker still.
On September 30 2013 01:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
4) Your various statements alluding to the rich, the high income people, or the wealthy being more capable with regard to understanding and making decisions about climate change, are weak
My statements are strongly supported by the fact that climatologist predictions so far have been wrong.
|
On September 30 2013 01:07 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 09:11 YumYumGranola wrote:On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:On September 29 2013 06:06 JinDesu wrote:
If temperature increase wasn't manmade, but would cause climate changes that could affect billions around the world, I think we would still investigate into how to revert or counteract that increase. It'd be silly otherwise. Its 0.6 degrees Celsius over 100 years, I mean if you think that is end of the world type stuff you are absurdist, we've had 2 degrees Celsius warmer in the medieval period and humans thrived, it was the golden age of mankind and there was plentiful of everything, food was in abundance, you name. Golden period on earth for humans. With today technology and adaptability that we have we can deal with pretty much +5 or -5 increase/decrease in temperatures, the truth is its not getting warmer or colder, the temperature is in constant flux and is within its completely normal and natural bounds to go +/- 3 degree Celsius. 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. Wow, it's like you were trying to fit every single nonsensical, already disproved climate denier argument into a single post. If only you'd gotten the whole "CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around" you'd have hit the whole cavalcade of "things I believe only because I don't bother to check facts". It's amazing to me that so many people on the denier side of this argument are SO SURE that they're being lied to by the general scientific community, and yet they will unquestioningly believe the most ridiculous things. I'm not sure if irony is the right word to describe it, but it feels like it is. 0.6 degrees Celsius is the alarmist own data, The medieval warm period is the alarmist own data, cosmic rays, sun spots, the rest are all major factors, I mean we don't live in a vacuum and the vacuum is in a box and so the sun which creates the climate on earth, that creates the seasons, that creates day and night has no effect on how warm it is. I mean its insane, its insane to not include the sun as a cause is the minuscule, slight 0.6 degrees warming. Its like saying the moon is made out of cheese, its like saying trees don't need water to grow, its absurd. 0.030% is the amount of change the carbon we've released would have on the global CO2 levels and I'm actually adding out of thin air more just to round it out to bring it to 0.1%. All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet. There is overall 0.0380 CO2 in the atmosphere, its not even a factor of overall elements on earth. How can about 0.030 of carbon that we've released to an already miniscule amount have any effects on the global temperatures? It is absolutely insane to think there is.
If CO2 were a major "factor of overall elements", well, I'm not sure life would exist at all. You're cherry-picking small numbers without giving them any correlation. I mean, look at how small those decimals are! How could 0.0380 of anything hurt anybody? That's your argument. Never mind all the things in nature that function based on there being trace amounts of elements in the right proportions.
All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet.
This is a very telling, misleading statement that someone looking at the atmosphere from a truly scientific perspective would NEVER make.
Our atmosphere itself -- the very thing we're talking about, that we all breathe and live under -- is miniscule, if you want to make size comparisons to the entirety of the planet. If the planet were a globe, the atmosphere wouldn't be thicker than a sheet of cheap paper. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, if you even think of looking at the problem from that sort of perspective. You don't know what makes our atmosphere work like it does, you don't know its fragility. And the people who do study such things, you just dismiss. (Although I don't think anyone is really calling the atmosphere "fragile", as we've certainly burned a whole lot of fossil residue already. I don't think anyone living in Mexico City, where pollution visibly floats in the air, would call the atmosphere fragile, although I'm sure many of them believe it's in trouble)
The only thing here that is "absolutely insane" is people's willingness to dismiss peer-reviewed scientific research because they think they know better, while subtly having to acknowledge that they don't know shit.
|
On September 30 2013 01:22 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 01:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
This is some top notch foolery. I'll end it here:
1) There is no correlation between IQ and wealth
Again, this was a misunderstanding on your part. The discussion was never about "wealth" in the sense of how much savings people have at various levels of income. I used the word "wealthy" in reference to a group of people we were discussing who have incomes over $1,000,000/year. I think it is fair to call people earning that much "wealthy", though I can see how you misinterpreted it. I don't really see how you are still misinterpreting it though. How odd. Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 01:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
2) There is a small, tenuous correlation between IQ and income
There is a significant correlation between IQ and income, strong enough to draw conclusions such as "each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year" from. And more than strong enough to support every statement I have said. I actually understated the correlation when I said "somewhat" because I didn't want to start any petty and stupid arguments. Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 01:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
3) Any argument made on the basis of the correlation between income and IQ, or worse, between wealth and IQ, is weak
Any argument made on the basis of your own misunderstanding is weaker still. Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 01:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
4) Your various statements alluding to the rich, the high income people, or the wealthy being more capable with regard to understanding and making decisions about climate change, are weak My statements are strongly supported by the fact that climatologist predictions so far have been wrong.
Odder yet is that you are somehow still wedded to the idea that income and IQ correlate strongly enough to make such statements along the lines of "higher income people are in better positions to be skeptical about climate change", especially with regard to those in the $1,000,000/year category which aren't even subject to the weak IQ-income correlation observed given the range of incomes studied.
How odd indeed.
|
On September 30 2013 01:31 FallDownMarigold wrote:
statements along the lines of "higher income people are in better positions to be skeptical about climate change"
Where is this quote from?
|
Bowled over by the dumbness of the arguments being put forward by the climate change denialists in this thread.
This "rich people are too smart for climate change" one has got to take the biscuit.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is rife on this subject. It's quite easy for people who don't know the first thing about science to be so complacent about dismissing the scientific method and instead trusting the hearsay of tabloids and Fox News.
|
On September 30 2013 01:42 GhastlyUprising wrote:
Bowled over by the dumbness of the arguments being put forward by the climate change denialists in this thread.
This "rich people are too smart for climate change" one has got to take the biscuit.
Actually it's more like "rich people are smart enough that if they believed in a looming climate catastrophe they would act rationally to try and prevent it, therefore their lack of concern should not be interpreted as malice or negligence but rather disbelief".
|
On September 30 2013 01:34 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 01:31 FallDownMarigold wrote:
statements along the lines of "higher income people are in better positions to be skeptical about climate change" Where is this quote from?
The part before the quotation marks says along the lines of. This phrase means that the following part inside of the quotation marks isn't found in that exact way anywhere -- it's just a summary of various bits from you. If I was actually aiming at quoting you verbatim, then I would definitely not preface the quote with that little phrase "along the lines of".
On September 30 2013 01:51 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 01:42 GhastlyUprising wrote:
Bowled over by the dumbness of the arguments being put forward by the climate change denialists in this thread.
This "rich people are too smart for climate change" one has got to take the biscuit. Actually it's more like "rich people are smart enough that if they believed in a looming climate catastrophe they would act rationally to try and prevent it, therefore their lack of concern should not be interpreted as malice or negligence but rather disbelief".
The loose logic that rich people = smart overrides the fact that climate scientists are the only ones that may opine authoritatively on climate change. Who knew!?
|
On September 30 2013 01:51 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 01:42 GhastlyUprising wrote:
Bowled over by the dumbness of the arguments being put forward by the climate change denialists in this thread.
This "rich people are too smart for climate change" one has got to take the biscuit. Actually it's more like "rich people are smart enough that if they believed in a looming climate catastrophe they would act rationally to try and prevent it, therefore their lack of concern should not be interpreted as malice or negligence but rather disbelief". Yet the intellectual elite overwhelmingly believe in climate change. Funny how that happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
