Does Science Reveal Truth?

@deepthought said
On a minor point, according to Wikipedia the first person to advance the idea was Joseph Fourier in the late 1820's as he realized the Earth ought to be considerably colder than it is [1]. Other early contributors to the theory were Claude Pouillet (1827, 1838), and Eunice Newton Foote (1856) who was a female scientist in the mid-19th Century. John Tyndall (1859). The ...[text shortened]... rier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#History

No I'm way off the track then.

That guy that pushed Thatcher's buttons was Burt Boelyn (not sure if the surname spelling corract.) The offer of the interview is still open.

@humy said
Given that many right-wing extremists keep making out the nonsense of the greenhouse theory being nothing more than some kind of extremist left-wing plot, I find it ironic that EVEN Margaret Thatcher, who I always thought as a right-wing extremists, accepted climate science that says CO2 causes global warming!
Mind you, she wasn't much like most other politician; being an odd c ...[text shortened]... a left-wing or a right-wing sympathizer in particular. I often strongly disagreed with BOTH parties.

I don't vote either as I'm all too aware of how their strings are being pulled - I don't trust politicians in general, though there are exceptions if they explain their reasoning.

I think that both the UK polical parties have sold out to big business and the whole left/right paradigm is to keep people from looking behind the curtain. Why would a labout government agree to the Lima declaration and the implication on it's workers ?

Going back to your question I've seen the Lawson quote on more than one documentary (I go through loads of different material because of my job - my preference is historical) but some to do with climate change . The one that I a soundtrack for (I converto to podcasts and listen while i drive) is called "The Big Secret about Climate Change" at the heart of which is who set the IPCC up, how the terms of reference were arrived at and limitations on their reporting. The thrust of the argument is that the IPCC can't look at all climate change influemces due to their terms of reference.

@deepthought said
I'm pretty certain that there is no correlation between morality and intelligence. There is a correlation between knowing how to act and intelligence, so malevolent people can appear to be moral. The less intelligent ones tend to overdo it and give themselves away. But someone both intelligent and malevolent is really dangerous because they'll appear to be good; you'd like them, they know which buttons to press.

Interesting point about Mortality/Intelligence.

I've bumped into a clinical study sparked off by the observation of the longevity of the Askanazi (European) jews, who i also understand have on average a 10 point higher IQ than their counterparts.

This is quite a relevant point to some that seem to champion the idea of a "Jewish Conspiracy" as they have diproportionately higher representation in positions of influence, which i suspect sits it this difference in IQ (Jordan Peterson).

@medullah said
Interesting point about Mortality/Intelligence.

I've bumped into a clinical study sparked off by the observation of the longevity of the Askanazi (European) jews, who i also understand have on average a 10 point higher IQ than their counterparts.

This is quite a relevant point to some that seem to champion the idea of a "Jewish Conspiracy" as they have diproportionate ...[text shortened]... entation in positions of influence, which i suspect sits it this difference in IQ (Jordan Peterson).

"the Askanazi (European) jews, who i also understand have on average a 10 point higher IQ than their counterparts."

What is your source of information?

FWIW I thought this was a nice laymans explanation of the relationship between sea level and climate change.... Unfortunate that the title fits into the classic "what we always thought is wrong" trope.

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/why-our-intuition-about-sea-level-rise-is-wrong

I thought this in particular was interesting....

The average sea level change in the 20th century was 1.2 millimeters per year. What we’ve seen in the last 20 years is an average of three millimeters per year—that’s a factor of two-and-a-half increase from the 20th century to now. So... It’s already gotten worse. And if you look back thousands of years, you have a wide range of tools at your disposal. One is eclipse records, and one is the Roman fish tanks. ... by looking at the present day elevation of those fish tanks, we could say something about how sea level had changed over the 2,500 years since then. If sea level over the last 2,500 years was going up at the rate that it went up in the 20th century, those fish tanks would be under 4 meters of water—12 feet of water—and I can assure you they’re not. You can see them. You can walk along the coast, they’re visible. What that tells you is that it is impossible that sea level went up by the rates that we saw in the 20th century for any extended period of time earlier than that. Sea level has not gone up over the last 2,500 years like it has in the 20th century.

@metal-brain said
"the Askanazi (European) jews, who i also understand have on average a 10 point higher IQ than their counterparts."

What is your source of information?

It's in his post. Jordan Peterson did say that in response to a question, his exact words were: "...the average Askanazi IQ is between 110 and 115.", which is about one standard deviation above the general population's mean. I do not know what Peterson's basis for this statement is and he can be pretty approximate with his facts. The video below is where he said it, it's from a Q&A talk at Toronto University.

The statement is at 2:35.

YouTube

There's a link to the full talk provided.

@medullah said
Interesting point about Mortality/Intelligence.

I've bumped into a clinical study sparked off by the observation of the longevity of the Askanazi (European) jews, who i also understand have on average a 10 point higher IQ than their counterparts.

This is quite a relevant point to some that seem to champion the idea of a "Jewish Conspiracy" as they have diproportionate ...[text shortened]... entation in positions of influence, which i suspect sits it this difference in IQ (Jordan Peterson).

I was talking about morality - morals - not mortaltiy. My post is stating that there is no correlation between how moral, or at least agreeable, someone is and how intelligent they are.

Having said that there is a correlation as there's some evidence dementia tends to start later. This would make sense, if one imagines two people with muscle wasting diseases then the one with bigger muscles to start with is going to last longer.

@wildgrass said
FWIW I thought this was a nice laymans explanation of the relationship between sea level and climate change.... Unfortunate that the title fits into the classic "what we always thought is wrong" trope.

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/why-our-intuition-about-sea-level-rise-is-wrong

I thought this in particular was interesting....

The average sea level change ...[text shortened]... that. Sea level has not gone up over the last 2,500 years like it has in the 20th century.

From 1940-1960 sea level increased about a factor of two. You need to compare the recent acceleration to another acceleration or it is irrelevant. Both accelerations and decelerations alternate in cycles. Roughly 20 years of acceleration followed by roughly 40 years of deceleration.

Now that we have finished ANOTHER acceleration in the cycle we should be entering a decelerating period that should last roughly 40 years. It is a natural cycle that is influenced by anthropogenic causes, but anthropogenic causes are clearly a factor of less than 50%.

@deepthought said
It's in his post. Jordan Peterson did say that in response to a question, his exact words were: "...the average Askanazi IQ is between 110 and 115.", which is about one standard deviation above the general population's mean. I do not know what Peterson's basis for this statement is and he can be pretty approximate with his facts. The video below is where he said it, i ...[text shortened]... at 2:35.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQHH6o9ual8

There's a link to the full talk provided.

I suppose a better education helps a person score higher on an IQ test simply from learning algebra. I don't think that is an accurate measure of real intelligence if education gave a person the edge.
Askanazi Jews are inbred though. They are like their own race in a way. I am open to the possibility that a higher IQ is fixed into their gene pool. That would be quite a revelation though. It would indicate Askanazi Jews were intellectually superior to the Nazis. Since I have never heard of it before now, I am skeptical.

@deepthought said
I was talking about morality - morals - not mortaltiy. My post is stating that there is no correlation between how moral, or at least agreeable, someone is and how intelligent they are.

Having said that there is a correlation as there's some evidence dementia tends to start later. This would make sense, if one imagines two people with muscle wasting diseases then the one with bigger muscles to start with is going to last longer.

Like Pinky and the Brain. lol.

@deepthought said
I was talking about morality - morals - not mortaltiy. My post is stating that there is no correlation between how moral, or at least agreeable, someone is and how intelligent they are.

Having said that there is a correlation as there's some evidence dementia tends to start later. This would make sense, if one imagines two people with muscle wasting diseases then the one with bigger muscles to start with is going to last longer.

That second paragraph is a little garbled, it should read as something like:

Having said that, there probably is a correlation between intelligence and longevity, for one thing I think there's some evidence dementia tends to start later in people of higher intelligence. One might expect people of higher intelligence to process medical guidance better, I'm thinking more of leaflets and government medical information. So I think it's plausible.

@metal-brain said
I suppose a better education helps a person score higher on an IQ test simply from learning algebra. I don't think that is an accurate measure of real intelligence if education gave a person the edge.
Askanazi Jews are inbred though. They are like their own race in a way. I am open to the possibility that a higher IQ is fixed into their gene pool. That would be quite a r ...[text shortened]... ere intellectually superior to the Nazis. Since I have never heard of it before now, I am skeptical.

There's a lot of factors that go into brain development. Neglect and lack of stimulation through the first five years of life are liable to be as important to fluid intelligence as the entire education programme after that is. So it's possible that something to do with Jewish culture that affects child rearing is driving it. Unless you can identify a specific gene or gene combination then genetic explanations are highly speculative.

It can also be because of some bias in the sample that Peterson is relying on, he's approximate with his facts and it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that he read it in a popular magazine where the journalist didn't mention that his source was a study of results of IQ tests where the sample of Askanazi's happened all to be university students. It can be from a population survey and good information. So feel free to reserve judgement unless anyone here knows what the original research that this statement's based on is.

Regarding IQ tests in general, the claim is that the results are correlated with intelligence. So an IQ test result of over 130 implies that one is in the top 2.2% of the population for intelligence. I don't know how one would go about measuring the error for IQ tests.

Another Jordan Peterson claim is that IQ is not correlated with conscientiousness. I find this difficult to believe since any IQ test sensitive enough to give any kind of reliable answer is going to have about 50 questions. I imagine that people with low conscientiousness are going to start making mistakes because they do things like not read the question carefully and become bored. Whereas conscientious people tend to read the question carefully and maintain focus. So I'd like to know what Peterson's basing that particular statement on.

@metal-brain said
From 1940-1960 sea level increased about a factor of two. You need to compare the recent acceleration to another acceleration or it is irrelevant. Both accelerations and decelerations alternate in cycles. Roughly 20 years of acceleration followed by roughly 40 years of deceleration.

Now that we have finished ANOTHER acceleration in the cycle we should be entering a dec ...[text shortened]... influenced by anthropogenic causes, but anthropogenic causes are clearly a factor of less than 50%.

It will still be rising though. I think you missed that about the quote I posted. Using the average over the 20th century, sea level should be 3-4 meters higher than it is now if it was rising at the average (1.2 mm) for the past 2500 years.

@Metal-Brain

Well that is no surprise, you are skeptical of ANYTHING you hear that is new.

@deepthought said
There's a lot of factors that go into brain development. Neglect and lack of stimulation through the first five years of life are liable to be as important to fluid intelligence as the entire education programme after that is. So it's possible that something to do with Jewish culture that affects child rearing is driving it. Unless you can identify a specific gene or g ...[text shortened]... efully and maintain focus. So I'd like to know what Peterson's basing that particular statement on.

"Askanazi's happened all to be university students"

Don't university students have higher IQs by simply knowing algebra? You can only compare a race of university students to other university students to reach a fair conclusion. Much like comparing sea level rise accelerations to other accelerations. It is only fair.

What about the inbreeding? Isn't it possible that higher intelligence can be fixed into the gene pool of an inbred line? I don't know the IQ of the Rothschild inbred line, but they are a successful family with their banking cartel. I'm guessing they are not stupid.