• 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'

nijato said:
So here I will paraphrase a hypothesis, as professed rather abrasively by RiverDad: It is NOT POSSIBLE to strictly adhere to evolution theory as currently understood without acknowledging SIGNIFICANT racial differences in general cognitive ability, produced by GENETIC factors.
Click to expand...

You go too far. Liberal creationists deny that the hereditarian hypothesis isn't even worthy of consideration, that it can't possible function as a mechanism which explains what is happening. That's why they're creationists.

I'm not saying that you must accept that such variance in intelligence MUST result, I'm saying that you have to accept that this is an entirely legitimate question, that it follows logically from a sound premise, and as my last post argued, that it in fact should be the null hypothesis if you wish to avoid wearing the label of creationist. This still leaves plenty of room for debate on determining how to explain the variance we measure while not rejecting the body of science that has developed around evolutionary principles.


2. Even having accepted standard IQ tests as a fair assessment of general cognitive ability, several sources (provided by mbig and RiverDad) of mean racial IQ data show a relatively small range of variance.
Click to expand...

Jan Klein and Naoyuki Takahata put it better than I can:


Under these circumstances, to claim that the genetic differences between the human races are trivial is more a political statement than a scientific argument. Trivial by what criterion?​


For example, The highest performing group cited (Ashkanazi Jews) and lowest (black) differed by only about 2 standard deviations. While that is significant if true, it allows us only to say with certainty that Jews outperform African-Americans on IQ tests.
Click to expand...


This is just wordsmanship that you're engaged in. Defining a 2 SD variance as being small and inconsequential is a bold move that might convince some people who are not up to speed on the details of what exactly it is that you're talking about, but a 2 SD variance is not "a small range of variance" when used by statisticians and scientists. You're making a political statement.

It should be clear that the case for race-dependent genetic differences that affect general cognitive ability has not been conclusively made.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that I gave you the impression that I was setting out to conclusively make the case. If I wanted to set out on that task I'd have to marshall more than 2,000 papers I have sitting on my hard drive. What I was doing was answering challenges from liberal creationists. I enjoy doing that. I find pleasure in their presenting an objection that they think closes down the debate and I come back and undermine their rejection. This back and forth display is available for all to follow over the two threads that hosted this discussion.

Therefore, all of you "liberals" painted by the broad brush of RiverDad can rest assured that adherence to evolution theory DOES NOT require belief in a race-associated genetic predisposition for high or low cognitive function.
Click to expand...

That's funny to read. You're taking more authority onto yourself than is warranted considering that this topic seems to be entirely new to you. All you're doing is engaging in a political show which seeks to give cover to liberal creationists to continue on in their ways of rejecting evolution as being applicable to humans and to human intelligence. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with engaging in political polemics, but please drop the act of your position being based on your thorough review of the evidence - this is a discussion board, for pete's sake, and you've just skimmed the literal surface of all the material from a number of disparate disciplines which produce mutually reinforcing evidence in support of the hereditarian position. You have not established any grounds to justify speaking with such reassuring authority.
 
Redress said:
No, I don't think that is it. But how do you trust some one to make reasonable decisions when they discount science.
Click to expand...
Because leadership skills are the most important skill necessary to be the President. It's not like we're hiring Presidents for their science background. I doubt anyone would shutdown science merely because they believe in something different. I believe that kind of thinking is a bit paranoid.
 
Last edited:
Methinks that, as usual, RiverDad is jousting with a strawman. Who are these "liberal creationists" (silly term) who outright reject the possibility of of a genetic component to intelligence? Clearly there is evidence for both a genetic and behavioral component. Clearly some of us would like to believe that it's more behavioral than genetic, and one of us has convinced himself that it isn't. Hopefully the remainder of the 2000 (!) papers on his hard drive are more convincing than the one's he's chosen to present so far.
 
American said:
Because leadership skills are the most important skill necessary to be the President. It's not like we're hiring Presidents for their science background. I doubt anyone would shutdown science merely because they believe in something different. I believe that kind of thinking is a bit paranoid.
Click to expand...

Personally I would rather that the President NOT have good leadership skills if he doesn't have the intelligence to lead in the right direction. Many of Perry's stances indicate that he's got an underpowered motor under the hood and it's not hitting on all cylinders.
 
AdamT said:
Personally I would rather that the President NOT have good leadership skills if he doesn't have the intelligence to lead in the right direction. Many of Perry's stances indicate that he's got an underpowered motor under the hood and it's not hitting on all cylinders.
Click to expand...


You have to be pretty far off the deep end, even for the far right, to deny the science behind both evolution and climate change. As Huntsman pointed out, it is not a winning position for the GOP. I wish I could say it pains me to see them find out the hard way! :sun
 
I guess having a little knowledge of actual science really does distinguish him from all the other GOP candidates. Hilarious, sad and embarrassing all at once.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
[/SIZE]

Read more: Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy' - Darren Samuelsohn - POLITICO.com

"To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy," Huntsman
Click to expand...


I have already contributed to his campaign once, and this makes me want to send the guy another check. However, since reason and sanity are not virtues Republican Primary Voters want in a candidate this year, I don't think this will help him out any.
Click to expand...

Huntsman is supporting the establishment of religion.

Global warming is a hoax.
 
Jerry said:
Huntsman is supporting the establishment of religion.

Global warming is a hoax.
Click to expand...

Ahh, the religion of the denier. So clear, so contrary to scientific consensus. But, faith works that way for some.

:coffeepap
 
Tucker Case said:
It measures one's ability to take IQ tests.
Click to expand...

There are real problems with the IQ test, so I'd be a little skeptical on people drawing too many conclusons based on them alone.
 
RiverDad said:
That's why they're creationists.
Click to expand...

In order to be a creationist, one has to have a belief associated with something being created. What you describe has nothing to do with creation, therefore, your invented application of the word "creationist" is nonsense.
 
Boo Radley said:
Ahh, the religion of the denier. So clear, so contrary to scientific consensus. But, faith works that way for some.

:coffeepap
Click to expand...

All evidence is to the contrary, not that you know what evidence is or what scientific standards are, but you're free to indulge in the religion of global warming all you want. At least you're not running for office and trying to force your religion down other people's throats with various Green-Laws (new new Blue Law), so have a good day :2wave:
 
Jerry said:
All evidence is to the contrary, not that you know what evidence is or what scientific standards are, but you're free to indulge in the religion of global warming all you want. At least you're not running for office and trying to force your religion down other people's throats with various Green-Laws (new new Blue Law), so have a good day :2wave:
Click to expand...

We have scientific consensus. Ignore all you want as that is the definition of religion.
 
Boo Radley said:
We have scientific consensus. Ignore all you want as that is the definition of religion.
Click to expand...



"… a deep strain of anti-intellectualism runs rampant in the contemporary GOP; a substantial percentage refuses to even believe what we already know, empirically speaking, about the biological roots of our existence. According to an ’08 Gallup poll, 60 percent of grassroots Republicans agree with the statement that “God created humans as is, within the last 10,000 years.” If they believe that, why would they respect the scientists who have charted global warming?"
Kelly McParland: U.S. presidential candidate is written off for talking sense | Full Comment | National Post


While this bodes well for Perry's chances in the GOP primary, it will certainly be an easily drawn distinction between the candidates next November.
 
Jerry said:
All evidence is to the contrary, not that you know what evidence is or what scientific standards are, but you're free to indulge in the religion of global warming all you want. At least you're not running for office and trying to force your religion down other people's throats with various Green-Laws (new new Blue Law), so have a good day :2wave:
Click to expand...

"All evidence is to the contrary" is just sticking your goddamned head in the sand. Some of the most dishonest bull**** in debate history. Your post is making the irony meter redline.

If you're so confident, feel free to step down to the environment forum and prove us all wrong. It must be easy, right, since all evidence is to the contrary.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
"All evidence is to the contrary" is just sticking your goddamned head in the sand. Some of the most dishonest bull**** in debate history. Your post is making the irony meter redline.
Click to expand...

I think he meant "all evidence save the literally tens of thousands of pages or peer reviewed research supporting AGW theory." You've got to read between the lines.
 
AdamT said:
I think he meant "all evidence save the literally tens of thousands of pages or peer reviewed research supporting AGW theory." You've got to read between the lines.
Click to expand...

Never ceases to amaze me how well people have been lead down the wrong road on this one. I actually understand AGW skepticism to some degree, a significant amount of effort has been put into muddying the waters. What continues to really floor me is that people are actually still having discussions on evolution. Good God religion can narrow someone's view sometimes... (pun intended) Young-earth creationism especially. Granted, there has been quite a bit of effort put into trying to "scientifically" prove YEC, but the proof that the earth is older is just so glaringly obvious that I have difficulty grasping how people manage to fall for YEC. It's literally in the same category as "is the world flat? TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!"
 
So much for the rock-solid consensus on the accuracy of Global Climate Models. Oops.


CERN's 8,000 scientists may not be able to find the hypothetical Higgs boson, but they have made an important contribution to climate physics, prompting climate models to be revised. . . .

Climate models will have to be revised, confirms CERN in supporting literature (pdf):

"t is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone.

The work involves over 60 scientists in 17 countries.

Veteran science editor Nigel Calder, who brought the theory to wide public attention with the book The Chilling Stars, co-authored with the father of the theory Henrik Svensmark, has an explanation and background on his blog, here, and offers possible reasons on why the research, mooted in the late 1990s, has taken so long.

Svensmark, who is no longer involved with the CERN experiment, says he believes the solar-cosmic ray factor is just one of four factors in climate. The other three are: volcanoes, a "regime shift" that took place in 1977, and residual anthropogenic components.

When Dr Kirkby first described the theory in 1998, he suggested cosmic rays "will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth's temperature that we have seen in the last century."​



To the points I made earlier in this thread. Climate Modeling is not science. We understand quite well some of, in fact, most of the isolated processes, but how they all interact is a HUGELY complex affair.

Having climate scientists advocating for public policy is what has tainted their reputation (notwithstanding their trying to pass off modeling as science) - they've traded on their authority by telling the public that the science is settled. Ooops. Not really.

To the last bolded statement - if we're going to play a game of which expert to listen to, it behooves us to note that the expert who is correct in his statement on a matter should have more authority than an expert who is incorrect on a matter. Further experimentation will give us more information, but the point still stands - the science is not settled and if climate models were indeed science, then this report has just falsified an entire body of work. Now that's impressive science.
 
RiverDad said:
So much for the rock-solid consensus on the accuracy of Global Climate Models. Oops.


CERN's 8,000 scientists may not be able to find the hypothetical Higgs boson, but they have made an important contribution to climate physics, prompting climate models to be revised. . . .

Climate models will have to be revised, confirms CERN in supporting literature (pdf):

"t is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone.

The work involves over 60 scientists in 17 countries.

Veteran science editor Nigel Calder, who brought the theory to wide public attention with the book The Chilling Stars, co-authored with the father of the theory Henrik Svensmark, has an explanation and background on his blog, here, and offers possible reasons on why the research, mooted in the late 1990s, has taken so long.

Svensmark, who is no longer involved with the CERN experiment, says he believes the solar-cosmic ray factor is just one of four factors in climate. The other three are: volcanoes, a "regime shift" that took place in 1977, and residual anthropogenic components.

When Dr Kirkby first described the theory in 1998, he suggested cosmic rays "will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth's temperature that we have seen in the last century."​



To the points I made earlier in this thread. Climate Modeling is not science. We understand quite well some of, in fact, most of the isolated processes, but how they all interact is a HUGELY complex affair.

Having climate scientists advocating for public policy is what has tainted their reputation (notwithstanding their trying to pass off modeling as science) - they've traded on their authority by telling the public that the science is settled. Ooops. Not really.

To the last bolded statement - if we're going to play a game of which expert to listen to, it behooves us to note that the expert who is correct in his statement on a matter should have more authority than an expert who is incorrect on a matter. Further experimentation will give us more information, but the point still stands - the science is not settled and if climate models were indeed science, then this report has just falsified an entire body of work. Now that's impressive science.
Click to expand...


A search on CERN's website of the phrase "climate models will have to be revised" brings up the following:


"Searched for: All the words "Climate models will have to be revised" Only search in: All WebPages People CDS Indico TwikiPages
Found: 0 No documents found in 78 ms
Sort by: Relevance | Date | Size Reverse
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could provide a link to the study you've posted, something other than a blog citing studies more than a decade out of date, maybe on the CERN website itself.
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
Perhaps you could provide a link to the study you've posted, something other than a blog citing studies more than a decade out of date, maybe on the CERN website itself.
Click to expand...

See here (note the URL):


Based on the first results from CLOUD, it is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours and water alone. It is now urgent to identify the additional nucleating vapours, and whether their sources are mainly natural or from human activities.​
 
RiverDad said:
See here (note the URL):


Based on the first results from CLOUD, it is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours and water alone. It is now urgent to identify the additional nucleating vapours, and whether their sources are mainly natural or from human activities.​
Click to expand...

This is an interesting study, and one that bears watching.

From your link:

However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic
rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their
ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed
Click to expand...
 
Dittohead not! said:
This is an interesting study, and one that bears watching.
Click to expand...

Just to make clear - there is a difference between calling for climate models to be revised and reaching conclusions based on this finding. Climate models are tools, conclusions are reached through the use of the scientific method.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom