• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

Dav said:
97% is a hugely inflated number, unless you only count those who get published, which immensely favors those who have bought into academia's current dogma over those who dare to go against it. Anyways, no matter which position I take, there's guaranteed to be some people with advanced science degrees who disagree, so that's kind of a non-argument.

Is it so hard to accept that there might possibly be forces pushing most scientists to the wrong conclusion other than actual science? Peer pressure/groupthink, or the fact that academia in general is hugely politically left-leaning, which brings in all sorts of sampling biases, comes to mind. Anyways, to answer your question, yes, I would rather do the actual research and come to my own conclusion than just take a poll of scientists and uninformedly decide whatever they tell me must be right.
Click to expand...

Actually it's not an inflated number at all. It was the result of a survey sent out to more than 3000 earth scientists: 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming : Deltoid

Unless you have a PhD or equivalent in a climate related field and you've done years of relevant study of the problem, you can't possibly do the actual research necessary to overturn the conclusions of literally thousands of published papers supporting climate change theory.

As far as any bias goes, I think you have it exactly backwards. No scientist ever made a reputation by going along with the herd.
 
Last edited:
rathi said:
Psychometrics are at the squishy end of the soft sciences. In real biology land, there is no overall standard for measuring intelligence in humans.
Click to expand...
As he said, IQ tests work pretty well. The best predicting variable we have for life outcome both within and without groups.
Race and IQ is a touchy subject (though it's OK to point to Race and Physical prowess) but differentials do exist, are measurable, and can be confirmed by outcomes of people's from a continental level right down to say a much smaller population on a different continent.


The evolution of physical characteristics localized to a geographic region took place long ago. The incredible mobility of modern societies prevents the same of kind regional selection in humans.
Click to expand...
Mental characteristics too... and probably NOT so long ago.
Why avoid the Un-PC.

Coincidentally I just posted in the 'Book Nook' under 2 hours ago:
mbig said:
Finally picked up:
The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution
Despite it's non-fiction title, looks like a fairly easy read. Had been reading About it/come across it alot.
A common sense, non-PC, work on Evolution/anthroplogy.

The 10,000 Year Explosion - Wikipedia

Amazon.com: The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution: Gregory Cochran, Henry Harpending

The 10,000 Year Explosion - Home

You'll probably be seeing it's effect even more in my posts.
I had already used/agreed with the 'shorter evolution' idea before it's debut.. which is why I bought it.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
As he said, IQ tests work pretty well. The best predicting variable we have for life outcome both within and without groups.
Click to expand...

Mmm, I think the only thing IQ tests are good at predicting is how well you will do on another IQ test. They are not good at predicting academic success, nor are they good at predicting success in life.

High IQ and Success
 
AdamT said:
Actually it's not an inflated number at all. It was the result of a survey sent out to more than 3000 earth scientists: 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming : Deltoid
Click to expand...

I already knew exactly where you got that bogus 97% number, hence, to restate:
unless you only count those who get published, which immensely favors those who have bought into academia's current dogma over those who dare to go against it.
Click to expand...

I don't put more faith in scientific evidence that's been confirmed by academia than that which is looked down upon by it. And anyways, as I said, by taking a position at all, you're saying that you know better than the published scientific evidence that disagrees with your conclusion. The fact that it's not as numerous is beside the point.
 
AdamT said:
Mmm, I think the only thing IQ tests are good at predicting is how well you will do on another IQ test. They are not good at predicting academic success, nor are they good at predicting success in life.

High IQ and Success
Click to expand...
Hardly a study, just a PC article.
"Do you need high IQ ..."
No, of course not.
We're talking Probability, you posted Apologetics with Strawmen.

Articles like that are the one thing RiverDad got generally right about liberality.
-
 
Last edited:
Dav said:
I already knew exactly where you got that bogus 97% number, hence, to restate:


I don't put more faith in scientific evidence that's been confirmed by academia than that which is looked down upon by it. And anyways, as I said, by taking a position at all, you're saying that you know better than the published scientific evidence that disagrees with your conclusion. The fact that it's not as numerous is beside the point.
Click to expand...

So when you search out active scientists, it's somehow unfair.

I suppose we could go the petition route: Global Warming Petition Project

Oh wait, that kinda fails.
 
Dav said:
I wish people would read what I actually wrote... see the above post.

If you narrow it down to just "Climatologists", it's more like 88%; still a vast majority, but not nearly as impressive-looking as 97%.
Click to expand...

And again, if we narrow it down to those active in the field(ie publishing in it), we get 97 to 98.
 
Redress said:
So when you search out active scientists, it's somehow unfair.

I suppose we could go the petition route: Global Warming Petition Project

Oh wait, that kinda fails.
Click to expand...

The word "active" isn't how they measured it. That study pretty blatantly kept narrowing the description down until they finally got to the highest number they could ever achieve. The full description was "Climatologists who are active publishers on climate change" In other words, Climatologists who succeed at getting published by a group of peers who loathe their opinion and have an incentive to keep it out of any academic arguments to keep that "consensus" narrative alive. Yes, that is unfair. Other climatologists have opinions too, and if we're going by scientific education and knowledge, their opinions matter just as much.
 
Dav said:
The word "active" isn't how they measured it. That study pretty blatantly kept narrowing the description down until they finally got to the highest number they could ever achieve. The full description was "Climatologists who are active publishers on climate change" In other words, Climatologists who succeed at getting published by a group of peers who loathe their opinion and have an incentive to keep it out of any academic arguments to keep that "consensus" narrative alive. Yes, that is unfair. Other climatologists have opinions too, and if we're going by scientific education and knowledge, their opinions matter just as much.
Click to expand...

Yes, but scientists active in their field tend to publish their work. So what you have is that among those who know the most on the subject, 97+ % think that man made global warming is correct. This does not prove that they in fact are right(argument ad populum or whatever it's called), but it does give great pause when considering it. There is almost no belief among the community of climatologists that manmade actions are not effecting the environment.
 
mbig said:
Hardly a study, just a PC article.
"Do you need high IQ ..."
No, of course not.
We're talking Probability, you posted Apologetics with Strawmen.

Articles like that are the one thing RiverDad got generally right about liberality.
-
Click to expand...

If you have studies showing a connection between IQ and grades and/or success, you may post them....
 
Redress said:
Yes, but scientists active in their field tend to publish their work. So what you have is that among those who know the most on the subject, 97+ % think that man made global warming is correct. This does not prove that they in fact are right(argument ad populum or whatever it's called), but it does give great pause when considering it. There is almost no belief among the community of climatologists that manmade actions are not effecting the environment.
Click to expand...

We're arguing in circles here. I guess it all depends on how susceptible to corruption you think the publishing process is. But 97% and 88% are two very different numbers with two very different implications. If it was seriously 97% of all climate scientists saying the same thing, I might be more inclined to agree with them.
 
Dav said:
We're arguing in circles here. I guess it all depends on how susceptible to corruption you think the publishing process is. But 97% and 88% are two very different numbers with two very different implications. If it was seriously 97% of all climate scientists saying the same thing, I might be more inclined to agree with them.
Click to expand...

And if it's just around 90%, you would go with the 10% who disagree? What is your background in science that gives you such confidence in your ability to digest this massive amount of extremely complex data?
 
AdamT said:
If you have studies showing a connection between IQ and grades and/or success, you may post them....
Click to expand...
Let's start with a Small more easily tackled/Pronounced one. (and then work outwards)

User:Alansohn/Ashkenazi intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia

Expert Findings

Psychometrics research has found that Ashkenazi Jews have the Highest mean score of any Ethnic group on standardized tests of general intelligence, at roughly one half to one standard deviation Higher than the mean of the general white population.[5]...."

Achievement

Ashkenazi Jews have made Disproportionately Large contributions to presumably Intellectual pursuits.

Though they are about a ¼ of 1% of the world's population, they comprise 28% of Nobel Prize winners in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, and Economics, - and have accounted for More than HALF of world Chess Champions.[10]

In the United States, Ashkenazi Jews represent less than 2% of the population, but have won 40% of the Nobel Prizes in science awarded to U.S. citizens, and 25% of all Turing Awards.

A significant decline in the number of Nobel Prizes awarded to Europeans and a corresponding increase in the number of prizes awarded to U.S. citizens occurred at the same time as Nazi persecutions of Jews drove them from Europe during the 1930s and the Holocaust reduced their number in Europe during the 1940s.[11]

[..........]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
And if it's just around 90%, you would go with the 10% who disagree? What is your background in science that gives you such confidence in your ability to digest this massive amount of extremely complex data?
Click to expand...

I've gone over this before several times, but if there's 10% of climate scientists who disagree with you, you're doing the exact same thing. Who are you to say you know better than them? They have a much greater background in their science than you do.

(This is beside the point that nobody, not even scientists, have the ability to digest such massive amounts of extremely complex data, and the fact that they think they can is part of the problem... but let's not get into that now.)
 
Councilman said:
Global Warming is a Myth or HOAX, call it what you will is based hysteria and poor science.
Click to expand...
You know that's just and editorial about a study that hasn't been replicated yet, correct?
 
AdamT said:
The paper you cited (the toast of wingnut websites) has been roundly panned by the scientific community. It's author has falsely claimed to have discovered the silver bullet that kills global warming time and time again.
Click to expand...
The author of the editorial? Or the author of the paper?
 
I really like Huntsman. He's sensible, not batty, and is a fiscal conservative/social liberal like me.
If was nominated, I would vote for him (If I can) instead of Obama
He's by far the best GOP candidate, though I'm afraid his chances are rather slim
 
roughdraft274 said:
That's perfectly fine to believe that but when you believe crazy **** like "evolution is a myth" the rational people of the world are allowed to point out the stupidity of what you're saying. It's just like if you wanted to claim the earth was flat. Of course you can do it, but don't expect me to try and hold back my laughter at such silly comments.
Click to expand...

Way to try to change what I said into something you could use to call me stupid, and I should file a complaint about it.

Well brainiac if you could comprehend the written word you would know I never said I believe that what I said was:
"Evolution is a myth to many people who think that God made everything as it is, and it will never change. They never consider that God may have included evolution in his plans."

AdamT said:
That is an absurd statement and you wouldn't have made it if you had even a casual understanding of the subject.
The paper you cited (the toast of wingnut websites) has been roundly panned by the scientific community. It's author has falsely claimed to have discovered the silver bullet that kills global warming time and time again.
Click to expand...

You are part of the group that promotes the HOAX I see. You are just plain wrong and want to continue the HOAX.

Google: New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming and you will find 10 pages or more of places you can read about the NASA report. The only people who panned it have a vested interest.

Hell Al Gores movie can't be shown in schools in the UK with the students being told it contains false and missleading information.
 
RiverDad said:
Don't overlook the people who don't believe in god and also believe that evolution is a myth. There are two sides to that coin.
Click to expand...

So how else to explain the diversity of life on Earth? Why all of the coincidences, such as the fact that EVERY LIVING CELL:

1. Uses the same chemicals to store and process information
2. Performs the same anaerobic metabolic processes as a part of respiration (glycolysis)
3. Use the same energy currency molecule (ATP)

While your at it, please explain:

1. The current biogeographical distributions of species on Earth (e.g. marsupials in Australia, Lemurs in Madagascar, etc.)
2. The similarities of comparative embryology shown among all members of the animal kingdom (ex. parazoa)
3. Why only the levarotary stereoisomers of amino acids are used by all life, with the exception of prokaryotic peptidoglycan.
4. The distribution of cell membrane lipids among the three domains of life, including the ester linkages of the archaeans.

remember, to be valid, your explaination has to be more parsimonious that evolution by natural selection from a common ancestor.

People, like Mr. Perry, that don't "believe" in science, really just don't know science.
 
American said:
So you're a one issue voter, and evolution is it. Shows how very little you care about our country.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think that is it. But how do you trust some one to make reasonable decisions when they discount science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom