|
In the west ignorance is a choice, anything you'll want to know is a google search away. Large fat cat investors don't tend to care much about science, except how they can profit from it. If anything, it's going to have to rely on government funding.
It's not a miracle solution, there are no miracle solutions. But as long as a large part of our species either ignores the problem or pretends it does not exist, we will get nowhere. It's a piece of the puzzle, nothing more.
|
In this thread and elsewhere we've seen appallingly low intellectual standards from the denialists.
Obviously the contest is uneven, and it will only be a matter of time before we win the war of ideas. Denialists will have the retards on Fox; we will have the clever and witty cartoonists. Their Youtube comments will be half-literate and nonsensical; ours will be eloquent.
Let's hope that by the time we win, it isn't too late to do something.
|
I don't really see how this changes anything. Looking at trends between 5-7 decades is not a very large sample (counting decades from the 1950's is hard).
|
On October 01 2013 00:40 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog 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. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture. On one hand you have a bunch of people who put a man on the Moon, discovered some of the fundamental laws of the universe, and developed the principles of modern technology which led to a revolution in living standards. On the other hand, you have businessmen who pride themselves on ruthless tactics and telling lies for living, and whose technical knowledge extends about as far as a supply and demand curve that they dimly remember from a business class.
i really didnt say all scientist are stupid just alot ( not a big % tho,), and i really really dont think buisenessmen are smarter.
This topic just proves it tbh. Everyone trying to convince people the effect is man made, should put their effort into combating it.
In my opinion time/effort into proving the effect is a waste because:
Scientific theories are better the more people fail to prove it wrong ( sorry, that sounds terrible, not a native speaker) absolut thruth and proof is rare.
This process generally takes a bit of time, and you need lots and lots of data. With this case, you cant get as much data as you want tho, because you cannot create/recreate usefull data by experimenting. So in this case we are left with observation, which will take AT LEAST multiple decades, ( not at all an expert on this topic, but seeing how climate change is really slow) to really disprove other effects apart from humans.
Now if the theory is correct, the speed at which the warming is progressing, multiple decades of not battling it are catastprohic.anyway. So the money/effort/time is wasted even when the theory is proven.
Doing something that doesnt have any good outcome, seems pretty stupid to me
TLDR: Everyone putting effort into convincing people of this effect, should spent his time into battling it instead.
|
On October 01 2013 00:40 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog 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. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture. On one hand you have a bunch of people who put a man on the Moon, discovered some of the fundamental laws of the universe, and developed the principles of modern technology which led to a revolution in living standards. On the other hand, you have businessmen who pride themselves on ruthless tactics and telling lies for living, and whose technical knowledge extends about as far as a supply and demand curve that they dimly remember from a business class.
On one hand you have people who developed atomic bombs, deadly nerve gasses, and have made it extremely efficient for humans to kill each other.
On the other hand you have businesspeople who have labored to bring their company closer to the mission statement their stakeholders have called them to do. Enabling people to fulfill their dreams in ways they would have never been able to otherwise.
http://www.missionstatements.com/fortune_500_mission_statements.html
Life is all about perspective.
|
On October 01 2013 03:46 freewareplayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 00:40 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog 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. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture. On one hand you have a bunch of people who put a man on the Moon, discovered some of the fundamental laws of the universe, and developed the principles of modern technology which led to a revolution in living standards. On the other hand, you have businessmen who pride themselves on ruthless tactics and telling lies for living, and whose technical knowledge extends about as far as a supply and demand curve that they dimly remember from a business class. i really didnt say all scientist are stupid just alot ( not a big % tho,), and i really really dont think buisenessmen are smarter. This topic just proves it tbh. Everyone trying to convince people the effect is man made, should put their effort into combating it. In my opinion time/effort into proving the effect is a waste because: Scientific theories are better the more people fail to prove it wrong ( sorry, that sounds terrible, not a native speaker) absolut thruth and proof is rare. This process generally takes a bit of time, and you need lots and lots of data. With this case, you cant get as much data as you want tho, because you cannot create/recreate usefull data by experimenting. So in this case we are left with observation, which will take AT LEAST multiple decades, ( not at all an expert on this topic, but seeing how climate change is really slow) to really disprove other effects apart from humans. Now if the theory is correct, the speed at which the warming is progressing, multiple decades of not battling it are catastprohic.anyway. So the money/effort/time is wasted even when the theory is proven. Doing something that doesnt have any good outcome, seems pretty stupid to me TLDR: Everyone putting effort into convincing people of this effect, should spent his time into battling it instead.
Based on your extensive research, what exactly is the percentage like for scientists that count as "stupid"? I'd be interested to know how you came up with it. Sounds legit
It's sort of baffling that in the same breath you urge scientists and those concerned with climate change and AGW to put all their resources toward combatting it without wasting any resources on informing other people about it. Reality check: No matter what science uncovers, it doesn't mean a thing until the people, via the government, act on it. Scientists clearly must sustain efforts to inform the rest about climate change because currently not enough are willing to accept it in order to bring about any real action. We still have the cluelessly ignorant people that think climate science is unscientific, and then worse we still have the greedy bastards who aren't quite stupid enough to truly doubt the science, but that can't stand to see bigger government regulation on X Y Z, and therefore join the ranks of denialists
|
On October 01 2013 04:24 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 00:40 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog 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. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture. On one hand you have a bunch of people who put a man on the Moon, discovered some of the fundamental laws of the universe, and developed the principles of modern technology which led to a revolution in living standards. On the other hand, you have businessmen who pride themselves on ruthless tactics and telling lies for living, and whose technical knowledge extends about as far as a supply and demand curve that they dimly remember from a business class. On one hand you have people who developed atomic bombs, deadly nerve gasses, and have made it extremely efficient for humans to kill each other. On the other hand you have businesspeople who have labored to bring their company closer to the mission statement their stakeholders have called them to do. Enabling people to fulfill their dreams in ways they would have never been able to otherwise. http://www.missionstatements.com/fortune_500_mission_statements.htmlLife is all about perspective. And some perspectives are more honest than others.
Who do you think funds the weapons research? Defence contractors, many of them private. When it comes to developing new ways for humans to kill each other, we'll call it a wash and you'll consider yourself lucky that I didn't pursue the difference in culpability between the weapons entrepreneur and the expendable hireling.
"Enabling people to fulfill their dreams" appears to be double-talk for "trying to increase profit margins by as much as is physically possible at the expense of consumers and employees".
|
On October 01 2013 05:06 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 03:46 freewareplayer wrote:On October 01 2013 00:40 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog 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. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture. On one hand you have a bunch of people who put a man on the Moon, discovered some of the fundamental laws of the universe, and developed the principles of modern technology which led to a revolution in living standards. On the other hand, you have businessmen who pride themselves on ruthless tactics and telling lies for living, and whose technical knowledge extends about as far as a supply and demand curve that they dimly remember from a business class. i really didnt say all scientist are stupid just alot ( not a big % tho,), and i really really dont think buisenessmen are smarter. This topic just proves it tbh. Everyone trying to convince people the effect is man made, should put their effort into combating it. In my opinion time/effort into proving the effect is a waste because: Scientific theories are better the more people fail to prove it wrong ( sorry, that sounds terrible, not a native speaker) absolut thruth and proof is rare. This process generally takes a bit of time, and you need lots and lots of data. With this case, you cant get as much data as you want tho, because you cannot create/recreate usefull data by experimenting. So in this case we are left with observation, which will take AT LEAST multiple decades, ( not at all an expert on this topic, but seeing how climate change is really slow) to really disprove other effects apart from humans. Now if the theory is correct, the speed at which the warming is progressing, multiple decades of not battling it are catastprohic.anyway. So the money/effort/time is wasted even when the theory is proven. Doing something that doesnt have any good outcome, seems pretty stupid to me TLDR: Everyone putting effort into convincing people of this effect, should spent his time into battling it instead. Based on your extensive research, what exactly is the percentage like for scientists that count as "stupid"? I'd be interested to know how you came up with it. Sounds legit It's sort of baffling that in the same breath you urge scientists and those concerned with climate change and AGW to put all their resources toward combatting it without wasting any resources on informing other people about it. Reality check: No matter what science uncovers, it doesn't mean a thing until the people, via the government, act on it. Scientists clearly must sustain efforts to inform the rest about climate change because currently not enough are willing to accept it in order to bring about any real action. We still have the cluelessly ignorant people that think climate science is unscientific, and then worse we still have the greedy bastards who aren't quite stupid enough to truly doubt the science, but that can't stand to see bigger government regulation on X Y Z, and therefore join the ranks of denialists
No need to write like a condocending whatever. I obviously just wanted to say that i do believe there are stupid "smart people". Thats common sense, and is in fact pretty legit, if you would look at people as overly criticly as you do at posts, you could see a lot of smart people behaving really stupid in real life.
All your text after doesnt change that by the time this can be proven without any doubt, its too late to prevent massive damage. Therefore yes, in my opinion, go take that research money and go develop technology to emit less dangerous stuff. Thats gonna be more benificial in either outcome, wheter the theory is right or wrong.
Reality Check: Yes convincing more people to get bigger funding/support is better.
Actual Reality Check: This isnt a topic that popped up yesterday. it has been discussed everywhere by everyone, vice presidents, celebreties, scientist, our grandmas, and then some. Barely anyone who denies it up till now, will likely switch their mind without actual new proof, which you cant get cause you need more data/time which you also dont have. People who are interested in topics like this, but arent informed about it should also be farely rare.
|
On October 01 2013 05:43 freewareplayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 05:06 FallDownMarigold wrote:On October 01 2013 03:46 freewareplayer wrote:On October 01 2013 00:40 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog 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. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture. On one hand you have a bunch of people who put a man on the Moon, discovered some of the fundamental laws of the universe, and developed the principles of modern technology which led to a revolution in living standards. On the other hand, you have businessmen who pride themselves on ruthless tactics and telling lies for living, and whose technical knowledge extends about as far as a supply and demand curve that they dimly remember from a business class. i really didnt say all scientist are stupid just alot ( not a big % tho,), and i really really dont think buisenessmen are smarter. This topic just proves it tbh. Everyone trying to convince people the effect is man made, should put their effort into combating it. In my opinion time/effort into proving the effect is a waste because: Scientific theories are better the more people fail to prove it wrong ( sorry, that sounds terrible, not a native speaker) absolut thruth and proof is rare. This process generally takes a bit of time, and you need lots and lots of data. With this case, you cant get as much data as you want tho, because you cannot create/recreate usefull data by experimenting. So in this case we are left with observation, which will take AT LEAST multiple decades, ( not at all an expert on this topic, but seeing how climate change is really slow) to really disprove other effects apart from humans. Now if the theory is correct, the speed at which the warming is progressing, multiple decades of not battling it are catastprohic.anyway. So the money/effort/time is wasted even when the theory is proven. Doing something that doesnt have any good outcome, seems pretty stupid to me TLDR: Everyone putting effort into convincing people of this effect, should spent his time into battling it instead. Based on your extensive research, what exactly is the percentage like for scientists that count as "stupid"? I'd be interested to know how you came up with it. Sounds legit It's sort of baffling that in the same breath you urge scientists and those concerned with climate change and AGW to put all their resources toward combatting it without wasting any resources on informing other people about it. Reality check: No matter what science uncovers, it doesn't mean a thing until the people, via the government, act on it. Scientists clearly must sustain efforts to inform the rest about climate change because currently not enough are willing to accept it in order to bring about any real action. We still have the cluelessly ignorant people that think climate science is unscientific, and then worse we still have the greedy bastards who aren't quite stupid enough to truly doubt the science, but that can't stand to see bigger government regulation on X Y Z, and therefore join the ranks of denialists No need to write like a condocending whatever. I obviously just wanted to say that i do believe there are stupid "smart people". Thats common sense, and is in fact pretty legit, if you would look at people as overly criticly as you do at posts, you could see a lot of smart people behaving really stupid in real life. All your text after doesnt change that by the time this can be proven without any doubt, its too late to prevent massive damage. Therefore yes, in my opinion, go take that research money and go develop technology to emit less dangerous stuff. Thats gonna be more benificial in either outcome, wheter the theory is right or wrong. Reality Check: Yes convincing more people to get bigger funding/support is better. Actual Reality Check: This isnt a topic that popped up yesterday. it has been discussed everywhere by everyone, vice presidents, celebreties, scientist, our grandmas, and then some. Barely anyone who denies it up till now, will likely switch their mind without actual new proof, which you cant get cause you need more data/time which you also dont have. People who are interested in topics like this, but arent informed about it should also be farely rare.
you are quite annoying because you sound just like a guy who lost an argument and is now saying 'yweah but you shuoldn't of been arguing in the first place'
Let me explain to you why the argument is happening - because most people agree with you and wish people like you would just stfu and stay out of serious conversation that has an intent of action.
To fight climate change - specifically man made climate change because if its man made presumably it can be effected in the opposite way - you need to get 2 things
1) Action from people - now action is easily blocked by contentious assholes who quite simply like to argue
2) MONEY - the only way to get money to act is to justify it ... again see the contentious assholes who are either a) argumentative people who cannot think but assume noise to the contrary is actually valid because they think it is b) People who have financial interest in perpetuating the harm and c) people who genuinley reached an incorrect conclusion because they didnt have the available facts.
The sad sad reality of the world is that group C is infinitesimally small. To combat group a) you need a ridiculous report of the scale of OP to hammer the point (at this point you realise that a) is actually a faith based argument so you should lump them with creationists and burn them in order to cleanse the gene pool. Group b) is more redeemable then group a) because you can simply give them opportunity to make money your way.
Why you need a report with 9200 analysis in it to simply show 'shitting in your own back yard is a bad idea' is beyond me. It is a sad sad reflection on the majority of the populations inability to police the population.
|
On October 01 2013 05:55 MrTortoise wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 05:43 freewareplayer wrote:On October 01 2013 05:06 FallDownMarigold wrote:On October 01 2013 03:46 freewareplayer wrote:On October 01 2013 00:40 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog 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. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture. On one hand you have a bunch of people who put a man on the Moon, discovered some of the fundamental laws of the universe, and developed the principles of modern technology which led to a revolution in living standards. On the other hand, you have businessmen who pride themselves on ruthless tactics and telling lies for living, and whose technical knowledge extends about as far as a supply and demand curve that they dimly remember from a business class. i really didnt say all scientist are stupid just alot ( not a big % tho,), and i really really dont think buisenessmen are smarter. This topic just proves it tbh. Everyone trying to convince people the effect is man made, should put their effort into combating it. In my opinion time/effort into proving the effect is a waste because: Scientific theories are better the more people fail to prove it wrong ( sorry, that sounds terrible, not a native speaker) absolut thruth and proof is rare. This process generally takes a bit of time, and you need lots and lots of data. With this case, you cant get as much data as you want tho, because you cannot create/recreate usefull data by experimenting. So in this case we are left with observation, which will take AT LEAST multiple decades, ( not at all an expert on this topic, but seeing how climate change is really slow) to really disprove other effects apart from humans. Now if the theory is correct, the speed at which the warming is progressing, multiple decades of not battling it are catastprohic.anyway. So the money/effort/time is wasted even when the theory is proven. Doing something that doesnt have any good outcome, seems pretty stupid to me TLDR: Everyone putting effort into convincing people of this effect, should spent his time into battling it instead. Based on your extensive research, what exactly is the percentage like for scientists that count as "stupid"? I'd be interested to know how you came up with it. Sounds legit It's sort of baffling that in the same breath you urge scientists and those concerned with climate change and AGW to put all their resources toward combatting it without wasting any resources on informing other people about it. Reality check: No matter what science uncovers, it doesn't mean a thing until the people, via the government, act on it. Scientists clearly must sustain efforts to inform the rest about climate change because currently not enough are willing to accept it in order to bring about any real action. We still have the cluelessly ignorant people that think climate science is unscientific, and then worse we still have the greedy bastards who aren't quite stupid enough to truly doubt the science, but that can't stand to see bigger government regulation on X Y Z, and therefore join the ranks of denialists No need to write like a condocending whatever. I obviously just wanted to say that i do believe there are stupid "smart people". Thats common sense, and is in fact pretty legit, if you would look at people as overly criticly as you do at posts, you could see a lot of smart people behaving really stupid in real life. All your text after doesnt change that by the time this can be proven without any doubt, its too late to prevent massive damage. Therefore yes, in my opinion, go take that research money and go develop technology to emit less dangerous stuff. Thats gonna be more benificial in either outcome, wheter the theory is right or wrong. Reality Check: Yes convincing more people to get bigger funding/support is better. Actual Reality Check: This isnt a topic that popped up yesterday. it has been discussed everywhere by everyone, vice presidents, celebreties, scientist, our grandmas, and then some. Barely anyone who denies it up till now, will likely switch their mind without actual new proof, which you cant get cause you need more data/time which you also dont have. People who are interested in topics like this, but arent informed about it should also be farely rare. you are quite annoying because you sound just like a guy who lost an argument and is now saying 'yweah but you shuoldn't of been arguing in the first place' Let me explain to you why the argument is happening - because most people agree with you and wish people like you would just stfu and stay out of serious conversation that has an intent of action. To fight climate change - specifically man made climate change because if its man made presumably it can be effected in the opposite way - you need to get 2 things 1) Action from people - now action is easily blocked by contentious assholes who quite simply like to argue 2) MONEY - the only way to get money to act is to justify it ... again see the contentious assholes who are either a) argumentative people who cannot think but assume noise to the contrary is actually valid because they think it is b) People who have financial interest in perpetuating the harm and c) people who genuinley reached an incorrect conclusion because they didnt have the available facts. The sad sad reality of the world is that group C is infinitesimally small. To combat group a) you need a ridiculous report of the scale of OP to hammer the point (at this point you realise that a) is actually a faith based argument so you should lump them with creationists and burn them in order to cleanse the gene pool. Group b) is more redeemable then group a) because you can simply give them opportunity to make money your way. Why you need a report with 9200 analysis in it to simply show 'shitting in your own back yard is a bad idea' is beyond me. It is a sad sad reflection on the majority of the populations inability to police the population.
Ok, you call me a bunch of stuff, then you say people agree with me but they want me to stftu? How does that even make sense.
You also completly ignored my points and talked past it, Then you even at least partially agree with me on your part C: If that group is so so small, that actually just strenghtens my point that further information campaigning wont change much.
Edit: Ironic taking about "Intent of Action". So many people believe in global man made warning, also many influental people. Get the people that care about it to act, instead of continously arguing with people whose opinion they wont change anyway.
|
On October 01 2013 05:18 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 04:24 Jisall wrote:On October 01 2013 00:40 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog 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. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture. On one hand you have a bunch of people who put a man on the Moon, discovered some of the fundamental laws of the universe, and developed the principles of modern technology which led to a revolution in living standards. On the other hand, you have businessmen who pride themselves on ruthless tactics and telling lies for living, and whose technical knowledge extends about as far as a supply and demand curve that they dimly remember from a business class. On one hand you have people who developed atomic bombs, deadly nerve gasses, and have made it extremely efficient for humans to kill each other. On the other hand you have businesspeople who have labored to bring their company closer to the mission statement their stakeholders have called them to do. Enabling people to fulfill their dreams in ways they would have never been able to otherwise. http://www.missionstatements.com/fortune_500_mission_statements.htmlLife is all about perspective. And some perspectives are more honest than others. Who do you think funds the weapons research? Defence contractors, many of them private. When it comes to developing new ways for humans to kill each other, we'll call it a wash and you'll consider yourself lucky that I didn't pursue the difference in culpability between the weapons entrepreneur and the expendable hireling. "Enabling people to fulfill their dreams" appears to be double-talk for "trying to increase profit margins by as much as is physically possible at the expense of consumers and employees".
Who do you think funds research into medicine? Pharmaceutical Companies, many of them private.
"Enabling people to fulfill their dreams" was describing how instead of devoting years to develop and make your own iPhone, somehow find the money to establish a network to support it, you can go to a store and buy one. Saving years of your life, and freeing you to do thinks you are passionate about. You don't have to grow your own food to survive, because companies are organizing that part of your survival for you.
Call me the devils advocate, but you have to see the world in more colors then black and white. You can't clump all companies into this "greedy" stereotype. The main premise in business is to create value for people, not rob them blind.
I think the Geneva Convention made it quite clear that there is no difference between the entrepreneur and the hireling in the eyes of the world.
|
On October 01 2013 02:10 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 08:47 zdfgucker wrote:
Thanks for proving what I wrote earlier. You have no idea what you're talking about. Come to rural China, rural India and see what it's like. All in all you're some armchair "genius" that has solutions for everything.
Of course it's not viable if you think about the big picture. But for THEM it's all they have. Even if some clown from Sweden thinks he knows better and maybe even tried lecturing them, lol.
"Hey, umm. I need you to have less children. Yeah I have no idea how to help you guys, sorry for you being poor. Just have less children, mkay?" Brilliant. It simply happens to be true that having fewer kids is the surest and fastest way to relieving poverty. Look at this chart and you see that the poorest parts of the world tend to have the highest fertility rates, and vice versa. As an example, the fertility rate of the United States is 2.05; the fertility rate of Niger is 7.19.
You see, that chart doesn't make sense. Take a look at China. Horrible colour picks aside (that's supposed to be 1-2 right? and horrible picks (so if a country has 1 child on average, is that 0-1 and 1-2? Either? Neither?), China has a 1 child policy so it will have that one colour. But the western parts (the poor parts) of China have lifted that restriction. Yet that list doesn't reflect that, only shows average for the country. 1.x for China in that list. Probably hasn't fully taken the 1 child policy into account, etc.
They got more children because kids have a high chance of dying, heck even teenagers or young adults do. It's hard manual work and you need many helping hands. That's why I wrote that they should be financially supported in the first place.. instead of some idiot claiming they should just have less children. :S When you struggle to survive on a daily basis you don't give a crap about global warming. And boy does poverty exist. I thought China was bad till I saw rural India. Haven't been to Africa and can only imagine how it's like in certain countries.
Geez the mods on this site are trigger happy for calling someone a clown. Hope that cheered up your day as much as it did mine.
|
On October 01 2013 06:12 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 05:18 GhastlyUprising wrote:On October 01 2013 04:24 Jisall wrote:On October 01 2013 00:40 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog 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. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture. On one hand you have a bunch of people who put a man on the Moon, discovered some of the fundamental laws of the universe, and developed the principles of modern technology which led to a revolution in living standards. On the other hand, you have businessmen who pride themselves on ruthless tactics and telling lies for living, and whose technical knowledge extends about as far as a supply and demand curve that they dimly remember from a business class. On one hand you have people who developed atomic bombs, deadly nerve gasses, and have made it extremely efficient for humans to kill each other. On the other hand you have businesspeople who have labored to bring their company closer to the mission statement their stakeholders have called them to do. Enabling people to fulfill their dreams in ways they would have never been able to otherwise. http://www.missionstatements.com/fortune_500_mission_statements.htmlLife is all about perspective. And some perspectives are more honest than others. Who do you think funds the weapons research? Defence contractors, many of them private. When it comes to developing new ways for humans to kill each other, we'll call it a wash and you'll consider yourself lucky that I didn't pursue the difference in culpability between the weapons entrepreneur and the expendable hireling. "Enabling people to fulfill their dreams" appears to be double-talk for "trying to increase profit margins by as much as is physically possible at the expense of consumers and employees". Who do you think funds research into medicine? Pharmaceutical Companies, many of them private. I never said some good things aren't accomplished in the private sector. My point was that every example you can give of bad things done by scientists are more than matched by corresponding examples for businesspeople.
Science is a methodology -- by far the best invented by our species -- for finding out the truth and discovering facts about the world.
Private enterprise is about making profit.
|
On October 01 2013 08:32 zdfgucker wrote:
You see, that chart doesn't make sense. Take a look at China. Horrible colour picks aside (that's supposed to be 1-2 right? and horrible picks (so if a country has 1 child on average, is that 0-1 and 1-2? Either? Neither?), China has a 1 child policy so it will have that one colour. But the western parts (the poor parts) of China have lifted that restriction. Yet that list doesn't reflect that, only shows average for the country. 1.x for China in that list. Probably hasn't fully taken the 1 child policy into account, etc. Pick up a book sometime. Fertility rate is obviously higher in poorer countries. Everybody knows it and you have to be profoundly ignorant to get the idea that it doesn't make sense.
If your theory is that the higher fertility rate is higher because morality rate is higher, the answer is you're simply wrong. Do it by household size and you find a similar result. Their families are larger, just as used to be the case in many Catholic families in Europe a few decades ago when they refused to use contraception. The father's wage was split between all the kids, and lo and behold, it led to poverty.
|
On October 01 2013 04:24 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 00:40 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog 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. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture. On one hand you have a bunch of people who put a man on the Moon, discovered some of the fundamental laws of the universe, and developed the principles of modern technology which led to a revolution in living standards. On the other hand, you have businessmen who pride themselves on ruthless tactics and telling lies for living, and whose technical knowledge extends about as far as a supply and demand curve that they dimly remember from a business class. On one hand you have people who developed atomic bombs, deadly nerve gasses, and have made it extremely efficient for humans to kill each other. On the other hand you have businesspeople who have labored to bring their company closer to the mission statement their stakeholders have called them to do. Enabling people to fulfill their dreams in ways they would have never been able to otherwise. http://www.missionstatements.com/fortune_500_mission_statements.htmlLife is all about perspective.
All of this generalizing is kind of silly. Obviously the scientists who are working on climate change are not the same people as those who made atomic bombs and deadly nerve gases, and in many of those cases it wasn't just the science but a powerful military interest and the promise that it would be used in defensive situations (or to combat evil countries).
So you can't lump all scientists together. The vast majority of them don't work on weapons of mass destruction, the vast majority of them just do data analysis of the climate and their job is to be as honest and scientifically rigorous as possible, and these are the results they came up with. They don't get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by pro-environmental groups so they really have very little monetary incentive to lie (in contrast to the oil and gas lobby), and everything they put out is peer reviewed anyway unless you want to believe in a ridiculous conspiracy theory involving tens of thousands of scientists. So its pretty dishonest to view scientists as people who just invent doomsday weapons and who should never be trusted, you pretty much trust them every day based on the myriad inventions you use, not to mention medical advances and vaccines, etc.
So as long as we get this good/evil fantastical divide between scientists and businessmen out of the way, revisit what Ghastly said. He's just pointing out that one is far more likely to be correct than the other considering their areas of expertise. I mean just think of any other area.
If you were about to have surgery, would you trust a surgeon who trained and studied at a top medical school or a businessman? If you're having some personal problems, do you go see a therapist or psychologist or do you see a businessman? Clearly some people are far more equipped, both in terms of their general intelligence and specific knowledge base, to deal with certain issues than others.
So now ask yourself the same question. If you want to know the state of the Earth's climate, and what's likely to happen in the future who do you ask? Physicists who trained for years researching climate science, or do you ask a businessman?? Please don't answer businessman lol 
|
On October 01 2013 04:24 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 00:40 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog 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. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture. On one hand you have a bunch of people who put a man on the Moon, discovered some of the fundamental laws of the universe, and developed the principles of modern technology which led to a revolution in living standards. On the other hand, you have businessmen who pride themselves on ruthless tactics and telling lies for living, and whose technical knowledge extends about as far as a supply and demand curve that they dimly remember from a business class. On one hand you have people who developed atomic bombs, deadly nerve gasses, and have made it extremely efficient for humans to kill each other. On the other hand you have businesspeople who have labored to bring their company closer to the mission statement their stakeholders have called them to do. Enabling people to fulfill their dreams in ways they would have never been able to otherwise. http://www.missionstatements.com/fortune_500_mission_statements.htmlLife is all about perspective.
Indeed, no process or technology is inherently good or evil. However, the "ideology" of science at least purports to advance humanity's knowledge, while the "ideology" of business is explicit in its demand for shareholder profits above all else. If you're the CEO of a company, you are personally liable if you "breach your fiduciary duties", advancing humanity or ethics be-damned.
Now, in practice most business and business people are good. It's unfortunate that you chose the fortune 500 list because if you had to choose the good from the bad, the very large multi-national corporations seem to do the most campaign funding, propaganda, lobbying, corruption, pollution, fraud, loophole abuse, and on and on, while your average small to medium (heck even large) sized business has to play by all the rules.
|
On October 01 2013 06:12 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 05:18 GhastlyUprising wrote:On October 01 2013 04:24 Jisall wrote:On October 01 2013 00:40 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog 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. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture. On one hand you have a bunch of people who put a man on the Moon, discovered some of the fundamental laws of the universe, and developed the principles of modern technology which led to a revolution in living standards. On the other hand, you have businessmen who pride themselves on ruthless tactics and telling lies for living, and whose technical knowledge extends about as far as a supply and demand curve that they dimly remember from a business class. On one hand you have people who developed atomic bombs, deadly nerve gasses, and have made it extremely efficient for humans to kill each other. On the other hand you have businesspeople who have labored to bring their company closer to the mission statement their stakeholders have called them to do. Enabling people to fulfill their dreams in ways they would have never been able to otherwise. http://www.missionstatements.com/fortune_500_mission_statements.htmlLife is all about perspective. And some perspectives are more honest than others. Who do you think funds the weapons research? Defence contractors, many of them private. When it comes to developing new ways for humans to kill each other, we'll call it a wash and you'll consider yourself lucky that I didn't pursue the difference in culpability between the weapons entrepreneur and the expendable hireling. "Enabling people to fulfill their dreams" appears to be double-talk for "trying to increase profit margins by as much as is physically possible at the expense of consumers and employees". Who do you think funds research into medicine? Pharmaceutical Companies, many of them private. "Enabling people to fulfill their dreams" was describing how instead of devoting years to develop and make your own iPhone, somehow find the money to establish a network to support it, you can go to a store and buy one. Saving years of your life, and freeing you to do thinks you are passionate about. You don't have to grow your own food to survive, because companies are organizing that part of your survival for you. Call me the devils advocate, but you have to see the world in more colors then black and white. You can't clump all companies into this "greedy" stereotype. The main premise in business is to create value for people, not rob them blind. I think the Geneva Convention made it quite clear that there is no difference between the entrepreneur and the hireling in the eyes of the world.
Greedy stereotype? It might have started as something good, but for all the good intentions in the world they still need food on the table and to do this they twist every fabric of their science to patent their discoveries and hinder human progress by introducing artificial scarcity into a market that shouldn't have any. Ever since the dawn of the personal computer and the ever inventiveness of silicon valley coupled with the warmachine that is the american government to back up their claims to monopoly on human invention we have done nothing but reinvent and reinvent the wheel. Each time a little different enough to get a new patent while also checking daily to see if anyone has anything remotely resembling this new patent so we can sue them so hard that the opposing company cant do much but disband or settle out of court thus wasting billions of intellectual capitol on what amounts to very little in the grander schemes of things.
Scientists and corporations both have ideals and you are both correct in believing in them, but to argue from those ideals is not doing any of you good service as the prospective people or conglomerates that you argue for have ditched their morals somewhere along the roadside.
It is not greedy to want to survive and use every means to do so, nor is it greed that gets scientists to put facts on the table slightly twisted to suit their own agenda, but it is selfish, and it will continue to be selfish. We are humans after all. Selfish self interest and discarded ideals are what is left of our much appreciated history. We threw the glory of war on the pyre during ww1. The glory of nationhood and idealism has been left as they are since ww2 (like rotting branches on the tree of life they are reserved for the people who care for them). In the same vein the glory of god is reserved for the people who care for it, just as the great bore of reality has become reserved for the people that care for it.
It is all a matter of individual perception whether the planet grows warmer or cooler. Just like it is all a matter of perception whether the economy is fucked or not (If you were a citizen in Greece or Spain then surely it would be considered royally fucked from your standpoint right?). Going by this view of reality distorting perception then both the scientists who proclaim, and the companies that deny or accept are both poor argumentative standpoints as you are neither scientist nor are you probably part of one such company. coupled with the common tendency for humans to parrot what comes best for our own view then arguing either side becomes flawed at its best.
This whole thing about how IQ somehow correlates to wealth which somehow correlates with climate denial is simply a numbers game that you both could do well to live without as you are both correct.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
apparently the truth is now a matter of what (quoting verbatim from other quality posters) "retards on fox" / "high income people" believe / don't believe
TL general, you never fail to disappoint!!
|
I haven't followed this video up at all, but it seems somewhat relevant whether it be correct or not, it's up to you.
+ Show Spoiler +
I find it extremely interesting.
|
that's the reason NASA is losing funding. they don't fully support this CO2 crap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
