Yes, the IQ thing is irrelevant. So stop bringing it up. Drop it. My IQ is 1,000 when I make money in the market. My IQ is 0 when I lose money in the market. My real life? Somewhere in between IQ of Who, and IQ of Does not matter. The sum of all that hypermath of calculating my IQ? It is represented here by a random quantum-mechanic formula... The answer is "who gives a shit". We are who we are. And we find Triumph the comedy dog funny. Yay comedy.
That's a pretty fucked up vision, pretty much every dictator ever shared your view of the world. I consider you a moron based on the "logic" you displayed in your posts on this subject. And the fact that you are so lacking in self awareness that you simultaneously argue that if the vast majority of scientists agree on something and the vast majority of ignorant rednecks deny it, we should go with the rednecks, but those with high IQs should rule the world? On the other hand, I'm objectively the brightest of the bright. Therefore I should get to decide how the world is run and you are hereby disenfranchised. And being bright as I am and having put a lot of time and effort into studying climate change as I have and you clearly haven't, I've decided you're wrong and we're going to basically do the opposite of what you want. You see how your dystopian vision of the world plays out? As Churchill said "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"
All of what you post above could be true, but probably isn't. Regardless however, the thing that sets science apart from more mundane human endeavors, where personal opinions really do matter, is that in matters scientific it only takes one bright person to upset the entire apple cart. Nir Shaviv... Shaviv started taking courses at the Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa at age 13. He graduated with a BA in physics in 1990, and finished as best in class. His prizes and awards include: 1996 Wolf foundation award for excellence as PhD student 1996 Lee A. DuBridge scholarship at Caltech 2000 Beatrice Tremaine scholarship in Toronto 2004 Siegfried Samuel Wolf lecture for nuclear physics 2014 IBM Einstein Fellowship, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton The following are excerpted from the Wiki article that GRULSTMRNN gave a link to... He is best known for his solar and cosmic-ray hypothesis of climate change. In 2002, Shaviv hypothesized that passages through the Milky Way's spiral arms appear to have been the cause behind the major ice-ages over the past billion years. In his later work, co-authored by Jan Veizer, a low upper limit was placed on the climatic effect of CO2. His best known contribution to the field of astrophysics was to demonstrate that the Eddington luminosity is not a strict limit, namely, that astrophysical objects can be brighter than the Eddington luminosity without blowing themselves apart. This is achieved through the development of a porous atmosphere that allows the radiation to escape while exerting little force on the gas. The theory was correctly used to explain the mass-loss in Eta Carinae's giant eruption, and the evolution of classical nova eruptions. He has also shown that the Cosmic Ray climate link explains part the faint sun paradox, since the slowly decreasing solar wind will give rise to a cooling effect that compensates the solar irradiance increase. Moreover, long term star formation activity in the Milky Way correlate with long term climate variations. In a more recent work with Andreas Prokoph and Ján Veizer, it was argued that the reconstructed temperature has a clear 32 million year oscillation that is consistent with the solar system's motion perpendicular to the galactic plane. The oscillation also appears to have a secondary modulation consistent with the radial epicyclic motion of the solar system. [Shaviv argues that] while sunspot activity declined after 1985, cosmic ray flux reached a minimum in 1992 and contributed to warming during the 1990s. Secondly, Shaviv argues that short term variations in radiative forcing are damped by the oceans, leading to a lag between changes in solar output and the effect on global temperatures. While the 2001 maximum was weaker than the 1990 maximum, increasing solar activity during previous decades was still having a warming effect, not unlike the lag between noon and the hottest hour of the day. Later quantitative modeling showed that indeed there is no discrepancy. The perceived "hiatus" in the early 2000s is a natural consequence of the decreased solar activity. Shaviv denies the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. He claims that solar activity changes have contributed between half to two thirds of the warming over the 20th century, and that climate sensitivity should be on the low side ΔTx2=1.3±0.4 °C compared with IPCC's range of ΔTx2=1.5 to 4.5 °C per CO2 doubling.
I already knew you were gonna argue this way before you even wrote it. problem is IQ is not completely subjective, there maybe fringe areas that are hard to define, but in everyday life we do say 'somebody is really smart (or dumb)'... it is something measurable, for the most part. Churchill... whatever.. he maybe correct at the time... but at some point the human race will develop beyond this outdated system... we are actually not too far away... which is why you need to buy GOOGL right now lol. how far are we from this? not very.
IQ is completely subjective. There can be no objectivity in a system that has a baseline grounded in a subjective measurement. The whole idea of physical age being divided by mental age to come up with the quotient is woefully inadequate. Oi! dozu, I posited my agreements with you on why renewables won't work for today's society. Don't argue with other people's viewpoints and tell them their opines are wrong. That is a sign of lower IQ than 100.
No, it's not subjective. I really am smarter than you, I'm willing to put down a pretty substantial wager on that, let's say $10,000?, based on pretty much any objective measure you'd care to use (and I still don't think that alone means I should be in charge). And pretty much every scientist is also smarter than you based on any objective measure you'd care to use. And the vast majority of the anti-science global warming denial crowd are objectively dumber than both your average human and the science crowd. You're arguing against your own position here, and apparently lack the ability to comprehend that, back to my meta original point!
Again your arguing pattern falls exactly into my prediction. So I’d like to ask people to watch. This is how they argue. Because there is no other way. The facts are not on their side. People like this usually end up on my ignore pile. Sig you have 1 more chance. Discuss the facts
And your response falls exactly into my prediction....faced with a blatant and obvious internal contradiction in your logic you choose to ignore it because it's beyond your ability to actually process through it. But let's talk about your so-called "facts". Like "Earth atmosphere is 5000 meters thick. of which CO2 is about 25meters thick. Man made CO2 is 2%. Which is 5 centimeters or 2 inches." That's nice, turns out if we added say, cyanide, at ".002 centimeters thick" (whatever kind of measurement that is, anyone who knows jack shit about this uses ppm or some other measure of concentration) we all die a quick and painful death. You seem to think that stating a fact on it's own, i.e. the "thickness of CO2", has some meaning when by itself it's absolutely meaningless. Is "2%" or as actual scientists would say, approximately 120 ppm, significant in terms of global warming potential? That's a question that would take a background you don't posses to understand, but you surely can understand that throwing out a number in isolation and basically saying "it's really small so it must not have any impact" is, as I first stated, utterly facile. And by the way, your first so-called fact is complete bullshit. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere pre-industrial revolution was about 280 ppm. It's now 400 ppm. Because I'm not sure basic math is your forte I'll do the math for you, that's a difference of 400-280=120 over an initial value of 280 ppm, or a percentage change of 120/280=42%. Not 2%...42%, you're off by more than an order of magnitude with your "fact". Even if we're extremely generous and say half of that wasn't caused by humans, just a remarkable coincidence, and even if we're extremely generous and say we don't care about ocean acidification, which is a simple chemistry fact, and the climate scientists (who don't forget are the smart people who should be in charge instead of you...according to you) have flaws in their theory, it's a massive experiment we're doing with the earth to increase CO2 that much. A level that's higher than earth has seen in 400,000 years. Neither you, I, or the climate scientists can say for sure what the results of that experiment we're all unwittingly doing will be. Why are you willing to gamble with all of our futures with such a massive change in the makeup of our atmosphere? I'm certainly not willing to, my bosses when I was in the military certainly aren't willing to, in fact it turns out that only the ignorant and willfully ignorant are willing to. Given the above you clearly fit into at least the first category. Let me guess, next you'll ask us to ignore that inconvenient "fact" that actually wan't a fact and make me spend 15 minutes debunking each of your subsequent idiot "facts" one by one? Why don't you just block all of us with IQs over 100 and make the world a better place instead?
so 2 inches out of 100 is significant... sorry, you tried hard... took a long time to come up with this reply... but your IQ is too low.. off to the ignore pile you go. lol.
and again, observe how they argue... in the earth's history co2 has been as high as 2-4000 ppms.. they muddy the water, that's what they do.. notice he make it sound like the 280 to 400 increase was all caused by human... while the truth is regardless it's 280 or 400, the human contribution has always been 2%. that's how they argue... they throw garbage at you.