The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Robert Weissberg Archive
A Tale of Two Faith-Based Theories
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Modern science has long progressed beyond relying on solely on personal experience. Nevertheless, that acknowledged, at least in some instances Yogi Berra’s quip that you can see a lot by looking around still remains relevant.

The role of personal experience is particularly relevant to two contemporary scientific theories. The first is global warming, specifically the earth grows warmer as a result of human activity and this rising temperature will ultimately prove catastrophic (see here). The second theory posits the existence of deeply imbedded genetic factors to explain group differences. To condense a long story, the first theory—global warming and its awaiting disastrous impact—has become a public, widely accepted scientifically-certified truth. Meanwhile the second assertion—racial differences are real and DNA determined—is an unspeakable heresy in public though it rests on solid science (see here, for example),

Scientific validity is not the issue here. Believers in global warming may be factually correct but their argument inescapably must appeal to authority (“settled science”) since their claims are beyond personal verification. Everything rests on obtuse technical analyses buttressed with massive amounts of data whose collection methods are likewise beyond the comprehension even to the reasonably well-informed. Acceptance requires an act of faith in science akin to embracing the Bible-based theology of creationism.

Can any person, no matter how perceptive, personally tell if average atmospheric temperatures have crept up a few degrees since industrialization or that sea levels have likewise risen two or three inches? Who can possibly on their own assess the alleged uptick in atmospheric carbon dioxide let alone attribute it to human causes? Ditto regarding supposed shrinking of Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets and whether polar bear populations are declining. And how is one to interpret periodic heat waves, hurricanes, cold spells, draughts and multiple other idiosyncratic weather events? Can even a coach potato person glued to the Weather Channel possess accurate statistical baselines so vital to certifying genuine change from historical, localized random-like blips? Further keep in mind that today’s climatic analyses requires super-computers crunching billions of data points so even Ph.D.’s in atmospheric science cannot rely on personal observations.

These non-personally verified data have monumental political and economic consequences. Unlike, say, defending Einstein’s theory of relativity versus Newtonian physics, there is an enormous amount of skin in the climate change game. Its acceptance as the scientific truth means billions in tax subsidies for “green” energy, a virtual war on fossil fuels (especially coal) and multiple other measures of immense economic consequences. And let’s not forget radical statists who see combating climate change as the perfect justification to advance their agenda.

The absence of personal verification plus the existence of some noisy dissenters (see here) conceivably explains why its adherents increasingly demand harsh measures to cement the orthodoxy. After all, forceful measures would be unnecessary if New York City winters averaged 60 F or LaGuardia Airport slipped under water. Some of these climate change defenders have even demanded that opposition, particularly from the fossil fuel industry, be made a federal crime under the RICO statute, the equivalent to how the tobacco companies mislead the public by sponsoring bogus research on the cancer/smoking link. In fact, 20 scientists who specialize in climate science have written to President Obama imploring him to criminally prosecute dissenters. A few have even suggested that global warming dissenters are the equivalent of Holocaust deniers.

Now, compare what ordinary people can observe regarding global warming with the in-your-face facts regarding hard-wired genetically determined group differences. Even the most PC environment-is-everything egalitarian cannot avoid this reality. For example, outside of genetic predispositions how can one explain the readily visible evidence regarding the sizable and enduring differences in academic achievement between whites and blacks or between these two groups and Asians? And that nothing, even billion dollar panaceas have closed these gaps over a half century of trying? Similar enduring, well-known disparities exist in violent crime, welfare dependency, illegitimacy and poverty. Why are predominantly white cities such as San Francisco far more livable than black-dominated Detroit or East St. Louis? Can anything but innate differences in cognitive ability explain why sub-Sahara Africa remains forever economically under-developed despite hundreds of billions in foreign aid while Germany and Japan quickly returned to prosperity following WW II devastation?

These only begin the cataloguing of highly visible group-related differences suggesting a strong genetic element. Complicated contentious statistical models are unnecessary to show that schools populated by under-class African Americans are disasters compared to those with enrolling immigrant Chinese and Vietnamese and that these varied outcomes span generations. Any sports fan can see on TV that racial groups differ sharply in athletic performance.

As in the case of global warming, there are substantial financial benefits associated with upholding the environmental determinist orthodoxy. Why lavish billions on social engineering if group differences are largely intractable? The blank slate vision of human nature is a bonanza to all those who labor to close racial gaps in education, work on eliminating inner-city poverty and for those NGO’s trying to transform Rwanda into Switzerland.

The irony we have depicted bodes poorly for the future informed public discussion on these two issues. As the doomsday predicted by global warming believers fails to appear for all to see, its champions can only double down on suppressing disbelievers (it is hardly accidental that “global warming” has morphed into the scientifically nebulous “climate change”). Perhaps a parallel exists with the reaction of cultists who alleged that the end of the world was imminent and when that fateful day arrived and life continued, they became even more fervent in their obviously wrong beliefs. All those feeding at the climate catastrophe trough will not go without a fight, even if these means wasting billions, stalling economic growth and unemploying millions whose livelihood depends on fossil fuels.


A similar uptick in heresy prosecution will afflict those who argue that some group differences are sufficiently hard-wired that not even mighty Washington can force the incoming MIT freshman class resemble a cross-section of America. At best, a few heretics may gain their 15 minutes of notoriety but such voices are barely heard in public before being censored as “hate.” So, get ready for more inquisitions to stamp out “racism,” more mandatory sensitivity training, and more mainstream media dishonesty. Remember the travails of James Watson, the Nobel Prize winning co-discoverer of DNA, when he merely suggested that the lack of economic progress in Africa might be a result of low IQ’s though there is compelling evidence for his case. Alas, the repeated failures of social engineering projects will only further motivate lying and suppression.

We are not suggesting that modern science should rest exclusively on verification by personal experience. That would be a disaster–I for one have never observed an electron let alone an infinitesimally small vibrating string and I suspect that 99% of science is beyond what most people can readily grasp let alone observe. Rather, while we have come a long way from when scholars took pains to avoid offending the prevailing religious faith, we still have a way to go.

Hide 52 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. szopen says:

    I live in Poznan, Poland. Within last 15 years I remember one good, old winter which I could compare to the winters of my youth. So, my personal experience is that the temperatures seem to go higher within my lifetime.

  2. Intuitive imagination is personal experience. During the creative process, personal experience is not only necessary, it is essential.

    As for global warming. Previously, major weather events happened on a geological scale. No animals might be able to deforest an Israeli size of the forest and build something on top, that is, to prevent the forest will not grow back so soon.

    Wooded regions have ” reduction ” of temperature compared to areas where only have concrete ground.

    Today we have not only us, the most intelligent species, but ” our ” inventions, such as technology, which has a large impact on the natural environment in chronological time. Before, volcanoes, bugs in macro-systems that produce climate stability, were responsible for these changes, such as stopping the Gulf Stream toward the Norwegian coast, which seems to have caused an ice age. Today it is we who are the volcanoes that can cause major disruptions to nature, with only the misuse of technology.

    No proof yet that we are directly responsible for global warming. But then it is important to ask. So what?? There must be another reason to stop the progressive destruction of the natural environment ??

    About racial differences. Environmental explanations for human behavior has historically been popular than genetic explanations, because it is based on short-term or context, because it is based on the idea that everyone can improve or worsen depending on the environment in which they are interacting and parts, do not They are totally wrong.

    What most of these people, especially liberals, seem to despise is the essential nature or root of these behavioral dispositions. As always, most people are unable to try to internalize explanations weighted on human behavioral phenomenology, always falling at one end of a spectrum of possibilities.

    For the rest, I believe that the change in the official narrative has an impact on the change of mind of many people, who for many reasons, among them the socialization, prefer to believe in extreme environmental theories that make our genes, mere paraphernalia without any importance .

    Most people have a weak but have intuition about what is right or wrong, especially regarding what is explicitly viewable. However, they appear to be dredged by their biological impulses, instead of giving greater importance to reason.

    The usual liberal hysteria about this reality is revealing. Who are absolutely sure about something, do not fear, even though it may become emotionally reactive if someone tries to deny its certainty.

    Liberals are just new believers a new monotheism, the globalist religion that needs the dogma of impossible biological equality to decompose all human nations and create a one planetary nation.

  3. Conclusion. Climate change is a hoax and black people are inferior.

  4. @szopen


    On the other hand, here in the New York region, winters are now colder than I recall as a child. I taught myself to ice skate two years ago. I couldn’t as a child; lakes rarely froze. Now they reliably freeze every year to allow for at least a month or two of skating.

    I’m not disputing your recollection. I’m sure it is accurate.

    What I mean to point out is that climate is a very complex subject. The theory that increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations will lead to increased temperatures is a reasonable idea. Of course, we need to remember, so was Thomas Malthus’ theory that humanity would always face starvation because population grows faster than food production. Malthus had no way to foresee that the internal combustion engine, scientific crop genetics and industrialized fertilizer production would change the math and solve the problem.

    A drastic reduction of carbon emissions now will have severe global economic consequences. It would be bad enough in rich countries, in non-industrialized economies it would be disastrous. In my opinion, it would be wise to weigh that against the probability that humanity will be able to develop low cost methods of producing non-carbon emitting energy.

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @Santoculto
  5. Sunbeam says:

    Things seem pretty obvious to me.

    Whether HBD people have things exactly nailed down is something I have doubts about.

    They are in the ball park though, and the SJW types can’t even find the stadium.

    But in regards to climate change… good god, does anyone want to read yet another wall of text on the issue?

    I’ve seen enough personally, and read enough reports about glaciers disappearing and similar things to believe in Climate Change. And I’ve read enough about the issue to also believe that it will continue for a long, long time. Regardless of whether some kind of 12 Monkeys plague wiped out the human race, or ecological terrorists assumed control of the world and instituted changes to their liking.

    The CO2 is in the air at elevated levels now. And it will remain for thousands of years. And it’s effects will play out over the next couple of hundred years in particular.

    Large scale geoengineering is the only thing that can plausibly address the CO2 humanity has already put into the system by burning all that carbon that nature so kindly sequestered over the eons. Actually we did a bit of that without even trying with coal plants and emissions. Not going to explain that one, you can google it if you want.

    But that is going to take a large scale coordinated effort and a lot of analysis to pull off. Maybe.

    Now only a fool would go on DailyKos and make arguments about HBD to the true believers there. And only a fool would argue that Climate Change is happening on this site.

    However the science makes sense. It fits the evidence. If you are a denier you don’t have a leg to stand on. The only question is how bad it is going to be exactly, and how long it will take to produce dramatic effects. And humanities ability to notice “dramatic effects” is really dicey if it takes a few decades to come into effect. You got to have scientific types with data… and charts and graphs to notice that.

    The sad thing in one respect is it will take longer than my and your lifetimes to play out. So I won’t get the metaphorical satisfaction of taking some heads and shoving noses into hot mess (I’m an Omega Male, not an Alpha), then launching said person 6 feet in the air by kicking them in the butt.

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
  6. AG says:

    Popularity is not the same thing as truth. Winning debate in public opinion is not the same thing as having the truth. For long time, Darwin and Galileo were on the losing side of debate, not very popular. But they have the truth. Majority of people are actually pretty stupid. Never trust popular opinion because of such studipidy.

    Rationality with no objective evidences lead to faith/religioins, superstition, false belief, conspiracy theory, baseless accusation, witch hunt.

    Rationality with objective evidences lead to science which is a process seeking truth. Without objective evidences, scientitists rather say “I don’t know”. Or at leas they only make hypothesis/speculation with little evidence. Next step is to collect data (objective evidence) to prove or disprove hypothesis. True scientists never have problem adimiting wrong. How can you denial of mistake like 3×2=5? (you know it wrong not because other people told you so. You can do a test adding 2 groups with 3 objects in each group and count final number objectively) .Unfortunately, ony a small percentage of people are capable of thinking like this, who are mostly high IQ types.

    Rationality with partial evidences lead to ideologies which are in denial of any evidences contradictory to their beliefs. Democracy, communism, conservatism, liberalism, ect are all fight each other in a very similar way. For its believers, it is actually a faith (without any evidence support) similar to religions. When hypothesis is accepted as truth, ideology forms.

    Majority people just have trouble differentiating fact(truth) vs opinion (hypothesis). All they do just think “popularity=truth”.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  7. GW says:

    It’s really an epistemic question rather than a “scientific” one. In order to assent to the AGW theory one must accept a number of things purely on authority…that temperature/rainfall measurements are accurate, that sample measurements taken as a global proxy provide a valid representation of Earth, that temperature changes are the result of CO2 and not a variety of other factors (ocean patterns, solar activity, volcanoes, etc.), and that scientists are being honest with the data.

    One also cannot ignore the obvious propaganda from the government/media/academia presentation of the issue. Even granting AGW, there is nothing metaphysical or empirical necessitating that increased CO2 levels are bad. CO2 is needed by plants and is part of the natural life-cycle of our biosphere. Without it we all die. What is the optimal level of CO2, and what if we are currently below this optimum? A warmer climate would mean longer growing seasons in North America and Eurasia. A warmer climate would mean fewer blizzards. A warmer climate would lead to more rain in many parts of the world. These counterpoints are never acknowledged by propagandists, who present AGW as always bad all of the time. This one-sided presentation further dissuades confidence in their data and theories.

    Racial differences are obvious to everyone and were known long before we had a solid knowledge of genetics. They are manifested across geography and culture. One can know that race is real in a much more obvious way than one can know that global warming is happening.

    • Agree: Stan d Mute
  8. @Sunbeam

    Let’s go over the same ground for the millionth time. I’ve worked a bit with non-linear system dynamics models. I also know a bit of geological and physical science. So I’m going to point out a few things that should cause distrust of the current orthodoxy regarding climate change:

    (1) Non-linear system dynamics models are notoriously unstable. A change of .00001% in a model parameter or input data can cause 1,000s of percent changes in outputs/predictions. (This is the so-called “butterfly effect” which contrary to popular belief is not a description of an oddity of nature but rather of the dangers implicit in building overly simple models of nature.) I’ve yet to see a rigorous sensitivity analysis of any of the models predicting anthropogenic global warming. And many of the parameters in these models are at best guestimates. We still really don’t understand, e.g., all the details of the carbon cycle very well nor whether water vapor – a very potent green house gas – exerts a positive or negative feedback on global warming. If you doubt this, look at all the “modifications” to these models that have been made over the years to explain why things have not been happening as the modelers confidently predicted they would.

    (2) Factors that are totally exogenous to the models currently in use have tens of orders of magnitude more affect on global climate than do all endogenous factors currently considered in the model taken together. The most important of these exogenous factors is solar radiation output. In fact the more reasonable modelers are now admitting that their models have done a terrible job predicting and explaining climate phenomena over the past several decades and are blaming this on changes in solar output. We don’t really understand fluctuations in this output. Until we do, predicting climate changes is a fatuous exercise of hubris. A second factor almost as important – just for example, it determines all seasonal variations in global climate that we experience annually — is the inclination of the earth’s axis of rotation to the ecliptic. Almost all geologists and students of very long-term past climate change, e.g., ice ages and the glaciations that characterize them, now believe that such climate changes are driven by the Malenkovitch (pardon my spelling) cycles, i.e., semi-regular, periodic, and very long-term by human standrds, precessions of the earth’s axis of rotation.

    (3) Very few persons who natter on about this subject realize that we are actually in the midst of the latest ice age and one, based on past experience, that is likely to last for another several million years. Ice ages, like the one we are currently experiencing, are characterized by glaciations – rapid spread of glaciers across much of the earth’s land surface, accompanied by drastic declines in sea levels. The glaciers from the last glaciation began receding about fifteen thousand years ago. We are about due for another glaciation. No one pretends to be able to explain the causes of these glaciations or when another might begin. Their onset appears to be very sudden. It is not outside the bounds of past experience that NYC could be buried under several thousand feet of ice within a few centuries. Of more immediate concern is that the sun appears to be going through a cycle that causes damaging global cooling. Past instances have been the Maunder Minimum and the so-called “Little Ice Age”. the effects of these on humans were devastating. I’m far more afraid of global cooling from forces outside human control than I am of potential global warming caused by the extremely puny impacts of humans on global climate. And by the way, most of the all too likely catastrophic events beyond human control that may affect global climate, e.g., volcano eruptions and meteor impacts, will lower not raise average global temperatures.

    (4) Finally, implicit in the foregoing argument is the fact that global warming is much better for humans than global cooling. The earth appears to have been much warmer on average than now — almost warmer than even the more dramatic predictions of climate doomsday alarmists — just a millenium or so ago. This was the period called the medieval climactic optimum. As the name suggests this period of exceptional warmth was highly beneficial, not destructive, to humans and human civilization. Agriculture flourished, wheat could be grown in Greenland, viniculture flourished in England and grapes grew wild in Labrador and Newfoundland. Wide swathes of taiga and tundra were accessible to human development. This period was brought to an end by a prolonged period of cooling interspersed with deep depressions in temperature, i.e., the Maunder Minimum and Little Ice Age mentioned previously. In fact, it is entirely possible that all the two-century rise in average global temperature the earth has just experienced, and which began well before anthropogenic emissions of green house gases into the atmosphere, may just be a natural rebound from unusually low temperatures during the most recent inter-glacial period of the current ice age.

    To conclude: (1) the models predicting AGW are not terribly trustworthy; (2) they ignore extremely powerful influences beyond human control which are poorly understood; (3) even if their predictions of global warming are correct this warming is likely, based on past historical experience, to have an overall beneficial effect on humanity; and (4) climate change is poorly understood and we probably face as great a likelihood of catastrophic global cooling as of beneficial global warming.

    Climate will continue to change as it always has. Humans actually exercise little, if any, control over such change. To prophecy that climate change is going to happen in a certain way and that human activity can redirect this change in another predictable way requires a megalomaniacal over-reach. The best policy is spera optimo para pessimo.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @Anonymous
  9. Realist says:

    Good article. But this situation only happens in countries that allow ignorant/stupid people to vote.

  10. @NJ Transit Commuter

    ”A drastic reduction of carbon emissions now will have severe global economic consequences. It would be bad enough in rich countries, in non-industrialized economies it would be disastrous.”

    Continuity of industrialization in third world countries is a idiocy. More disastrious than what they already are seems impossible.

    Creativity= search for new and better paths.

  11. @AG

    ”Majority people just have trouble differentiating fact(truth) vs opinion (hypothesis).”

    As you IC with the hypothesis ”iq=intelligence”.

  12. @Jus' Sayin'...

    ”I’m far more afraid of global cooling from forces outside human control than I am of potential global warming caused by the extremely puny impacts of humans on global climate”


  13. Climate change by anthropo-causes had been used for forced people accept necessity of demographic reduction.

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
  14. Realist says:

    There has always been climate change. The question is, is it now anthropogenic?

  15. @GW

    The global warming debate on the ground level, i.e. among non-scientists, has always struck me as pure signalling. There’s simply no way that even well-educated laypersons can claim to have enough understanding of the situation to make an informed decision.

    In those cases, I tend to look what I do know and give it my best guess, so here they are.

    Fighting for the AGW side:

    1. It appears that a majority of people in the field lean to the conclusion that AGW is real and potentially a major problem down the line.

    This goes a long way in my book.

    In the other corner:

    1. Scientists have biases and those biases have consciously and unconsciously swayed research in the past to very incorrect and widely held theories. And there’s no doubt that the vast majority of climate scientists are left-leaning, as is the case with most scientists. Therefore, there is certainly the potential that AGW is simply wishful thinking.

    2. The money, and, certainly, and media prestige, appears to be on the side of promoting AGW. Men have been influenced by much less.

    3. I live in the DC area and can tell you from personal observation that climate scientists and other advocates of AGW don’t “act” like it’s a problem, i.e. they live single-family homes, have two cars, live in the suburbs and travel by air. It’s hard to buy what they’re selling when they don’t seem to buy it.

    These also go a long way in my book.

    Conclusion: Don’t have a clue.

    Regarding HBD, the science is on the side of HBD, there’s no money or prestige in promoting HBD and people on both sides of the argument most certainly do “act” like HBD is real in their own lives. Clear winner: HBD.

  16. AG says:

    Beware of sophistry.

    Like I said before, winning debate in public opinion is not the same thing as having the truth. However these idiots believe winning argument rather than finding truth. Unfortunately in minds of these idiots or many people, winning debate in public opinion = having truth. This how politicians / salemen work, not scientists.

    Arguing with idiots is pure waste of time.

    • Replies: @AG
  17. Svigor says:

    I live in Poznan, Poland. Within last 15 years I remember one good, old winter which I could compare to the winters of my youth. So, my personal experience is that the temperatures seem to go higher within my lifetime.

    I live in Charleston, SC, USA. We recently had the harshest winter in my memory, and the mildest summer.

    Sunbeam: so, the fact that the sources of the data have been fudging said data for years now, that gives you no pause?

    So I’m going to point out a few things that should cause distrust of the current orthodoxy regarding climate change:

    I assume you mean other than the fact that those who espouse it are a pack of proven liars who have shown over and over again that they’ll say anything to support their fantasy-ideology.

  18. global warming would never be address till there are catastrophic affects. no one wants to pay the economic consequences for it.

  19. @Santoculto

    A pretty picture but hardly responsive to any of the points I made.

    But since you appear to have raised the point of human biomass — I’m not really sure since a picture is hardly a coherent argument. — humans do indeed cover large swathes of the earth but to a miniscule degree compared to say bacteria which have a biomass probably approaching two orders of magnitude greater than that humans, considered together with their crops and their livestock and a similarly greater impact on the earth’s atmosphere.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  20. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    you want the truth on religion and science? You can’t HANDLE the truth!

    Read ’em and weep, sweetheart:

  21. @Jus' Sayin'...

    These picture don’t refute all your points, just one, your idea that human impact is insignificant.

    Your argument about human impact is far to be coherent in any perspective.

    Your argument look like a excuse for more destruction and not an argument per si.

  22. AG says:

    Here is example of sophistry. We all know idiots can win arguments easily. Those idiots can believe themselve smarter than Harvard students.

    There are so many way to win arguments including coercion, word splitting, fallacy, etc which has no truth at all.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  23. nickels says:

    Science is great at specifics, but utterly worthless for overarching theories:

    “By the word science, Mr Berthelot evidently means, like all who believe in science, a science that embraces every aspect of human knowledge, harmoniously united, assessed according to its degree of importance and in command of such methods that the data obtained is indisputably true.
    But since there is really no such science, and what is referred to as science is a collection of incidental, totally disconnected items of knowledge which are often completely useless, and not only fail to present the indisputable truth but very often present the most crude delusions, displayed as the truth today and refuted tomorrow, it is obvious that the thing which Mr. Berthelot claims must replace religion does not exist.
    Therefore when Mr. Berthelot and those in agreement with him say that science will replace religion, their assertion is entirely arbitrary and based on a completely unjustified belief in the infallibility of science, a belief quite similar to faith in the infallibility of the Church.”
    –Tolstoy, “What is Religion and of what Does its Essense Consist?” 1902.

    • Replies: @Realist
  24. @AG

    ”Those idiots can believe themselve smarter than Harvard students.”

    You’re a idiot, ”ic”, 😉

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
  25. I guess when it comes to climate science, my attitude is much the same as it is toward economics. When either climate scientists or economists talk, all I hear is blah, blah, blah, until they make a concrete prediction. Then I record that prediction, and compare the prediction to the eventual fact. If they are consistently right, then I give them real credibility. If they are wrong, then they lose it.

    The problem with both economists and climate scientists is that they seem to get things wrong. Economists have been telling us forever that globalism is going to help us, every one. Well, they could not have been more wrong about that. Climate scientists used their models to predict rapid and consistent global warming, but there’s hardly been any upper trend over the last 15-20 years. So I don’t trust them.

    If you want to convince me, Mr. Scientist, first convince my lying eyes.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  26. Realist says:

    “Therefore when Mr. Berthelot and those in agreement with him say that science will replace religion, their assertion is entirely arbitrary and based on a completely unjustified belief in the infallibility of science, a belief quite similar to faith in the infallibility of the Church.””

    Maybe not infallible, but a lot less fallible than religion.

    • Replies: @nickels
    , @Stan d Mute
  27. Rehmat says: • Website

    Lately, the climate-change discussion has turned into anti-Israel, anti-Jewish name-calling. For example, the other day, Canadian-born Jewish author and climate-change activist, Naomi Klein called Israel-First prime minister of Australia, Tony Abbott, a villain because like Canadian government of Stephen Harper, another Israel stooge, he is bent on destroying the planet.

    American ‘self-hating’ Jewish author, Naomi Wolf, said in June 2015: “I have had the incredible privilege of travelling and meeting with activists, labour unions, and politicians who are focusing on climate-change. I want to tell you that that the coalition of groups we’re witnessing being assembled here in Canada, is unique: organizations representing the most marginalized people in Toronto; First Nations who are our water and carbon keepers; environmentalists waging inspiring divestment campaigns; and the trade union movement, including country’s largest private sector union representing workers at the heart of the fossil fuel economy. We understand that we have key differences, but we also understand that what unite us is greater.”

  28. @candid_observer

    I can’t help it. Let’s just say it’s been boring to agree with my friend for so long that, over dinner with good wine I say “OK, you like the concrete prediction to test, the minor premise, the particulars…. well let me tell you that my ‘we’ is not your ‘we’ and I, like other Australians have done very well out of the resumption of 19th century globalisation a hundred years on from its first major disruption”.

    At its simplest America, following the standard economists’ generalisations – models -made China’s unprecedented growth possible and Australia (no recession for 25 years) is just one significant beneficiary.

    What is more things have been so good we need something like AGW to forestall hubris and to stop us becoming too cheerful. Of course we have other avenues to appeasing puritanical lefty sadsacks: high consumer debt comes to mind and we can’t count on dodgy money from China continuing to prop up the non mining economy by building apartments and mansions.

  29. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website

    It is science which demolishes the ‘6m Jews, 5M others and gas chambers’, aka: the ‘holocau\$t’ storyline.

    The ‘holocaust’ propaganda is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. Simply stated, it is utterly impossible as alleged, but it does allow racist Israel to get away with slaughtering Palestinians and stealing billions from the US taxpayers every year, and then demand that US soldiers die for their profitable self interests.

    See the laughable ‘holocau\$t’ propaganda debunked with ease, see here:

    Let’s talk about it. No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    The scam must stop.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  30. Oh what a wonderfully cunning argument !
    And linking racial genetic arguments with climate change science ? Absolutely, chic !
    I knew where i stood when i read this gem:

    “Acceptance [of climate science] requires an act of faith in science akin to embracing the Bible-based theology of

    Oh, “god” i fear i’m in the realm of catagory mistakes boardering on the cartoon….Funny, when i switch on my tv, i dont experrience a sensation of “faith” in Sponge Bob Squarepants, merely an expectation of cause and effect….unless, my tv’s Spong Bob is an entity beyond time and space….? Maybe…?
    But, lets face it, just another attack on EXTREME “liberals”, a BARN DOOR looking for a pop gun….
    As for genetic differences between “races” ? Oh, WHACKO !! I’m so illuminated…social policy has now become: 2 + 2…..
    Sadly though, i suffer from genetic compassion and stupidity, and i cant see how vague TENDENCIES ( and thats being GENEROUS) brtween this “race” or another matters too much….of course, i’m not looking for an excuse to be a bastard…so, this “discussion” is not really my business…..but, hey, maybe I’ll come down with a dose of religion or “science”, so i have not given up hope yet……

    • Replies: @Yak-15
    , @Stan d Mute
  31. AG says:

    Scientific truth itself is always accepted easily in public since not all truth can be handled by people. Even non-human related truth like heliocentric idea took generation of die-hard resistance. The scientific fact conerning human nature would be even harder to be accepted since some people will end up on losing side of truth. Denial or faith is only way to protect their ego

    For people of low IQ, they naturally will reject the very idea of IQ or intelligence. These losers even do not recognize ther very word IQ=intelligence quotient (rank of intelligence).

    For people in poverity, they will claim that wealth will not make you happy (in contrary to reality).

    For some people with terminal ill, they are in denial of their ill and choose to reject medical treatment.

    The list can go on and on. Losers are obvious in denial of fact. Like I said, arguing with these losers or idiots will be waste of time.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  32. Yak-15 says:

    That is an Interesting, fact based refutation of HBD.

  33. nickels says:

    “Maybe not infallible, but a lot less fallible than religion.”

    The specific tidbits and tiny questions science answers, on these I would agree.
    But, in my esteemed opinion, when science ventures beyond tidbits and tries to connect them into a theory it all too often creates useless nonsense. Religion, on the other hand, may construct similar nonsense, but is more likely to create useful theories because it accepts that it does not know all and appeals to the human good. In addition, it usually consults tradition and scripture, which guide it in more positive ways than the fragile architect of science with his disconnected, mis-shapen bricks of ‘tiny truths’.

    • Replies: @Realist
  34. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Can any person, no matter how perceptive, personally tell if average atmospheric temperatures have crept up a few degrees…

    By that logic, nothing that our narrow senses can’t perceive are verifiable. Evolution, ultraviolet light, chemical reactions, magnetism, on and on.

    Did you personally see the formation of Everest? Well then we have no way of determining how it happened, right? Plate tectonics is just a matter of faith!

  35. Realist says:

    “But, in my esteemed opinion, when science ventures beyond tidbits and tries to connect them into a theory it all too often creates useless nonsense.”

    Only in your dreams is your opinion esteemed. Religion is useful only to control the ignorant.

    • Replies: @nickels
  36. nickels says:

    “Only in your dreams is your opinion esteemed. Religion is useful only to control the ignorant.”

    ha ha, well +1 detailed reading.

    Come on, Marx was an ignoramus of the ultimate calibre.
    Yes, it has been used as such.
    But to reduce it to as much is truly, well I can only think of slurs, so I leave it at *, where * represent something not so good.

    Read some early literature on the history of Judaism if you want to a particular case where the power of religion is especially easy to follow. Other instances abound.
    In essence, Judaism allowed a people to survive, self rule under foreign rule, unite the diaspora, and continue a cultural tradition for 4000 years. Woah!

  37. @AG

    Would you please stop commenting on intelligence, you are their counterparts just hinder debate on this subject.

    I already knew you were an idiot with mental retardation in the category ” intellectual intelligence ”. But until then, I had not imagined that the level of stupidity was so high.

    Ever since I read your comment on the blog Pumpkin Person, praising him, about how perspicacious he is to understand about ” human intelligence ”, um um, sorry, IQ, I realized how stupid and loser you are.

    The typical iqtard, that use results on cognitive tests to communicate within your social environment, how globally smart he think he is.

    Indeed, the one who is curious about the intelligence when receiving their IQ scores, and goes on to treat them as if they were the perfect representation of all their intellects, does not know anything about yourself, the first step to be a complete idiot.

    Any idiot replacing the word / concept ” intelligence ” by ” iq ” should be forbidden to discuss intelligence, but who am I if not an intrepid fallen angel trying to fight a rising tide of stupidity, surprise, which is endorsed by many so-called ” smart ”.

    The IQ has served to hide the insecurity of many people. Of course, anyone who is unconsciously unsure about themselves, it will grab the first ideology boring to nurture with their psychological needs, aka, psychological vulnerabilities.

    Its called convenience.

    • Replies: @Jim
  38. @Wally

    Let’s talk about it. No name calling, level playing field debate here

    That’s some bullshit right there.

  39. Bliss says:

    Scientific validity is not the issue here. Believers in global warming may be factually correct but their argument inescapably must appeal to authority (“settled science”) since their claims are beyond personal verification……Acceptance requires an act of faith in science akin to embracing the Bible-based theology of creationism.

    A truly idiotic argument. Only a completely clueless moron would equate faith in science with faith in superstition.

    Scientists don’t operate on the basis of faith in “revelations” from primitive prophets (who have a sorry record in prophecy). The non-scientists who trust scientific consensus are free to examine the rational scientific process on which it is based if they are inclined to do do.

    Ditto regarding supposed shrinking of Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets

    Does looking at photographs of the shrinking ice sheets, and listening to testimony from NASA scientists who observe the planet earth from outer space constitute blind faith to you?

    Look, read, and weep:

    Some of these climate change defenders have even demanded that opposition, particularly from the fossil fuel industry, be made a federal crime under the RICO statute, the equivalent to how the tobacco companies mislead the public by sponsoring bogus research on the cancer/smoking link.

    You have it ass-backwards. The Tobacco companies who fought against the scientists who found the cancer/smoking link are clearly the equivalent of the oil companies who are fighting against the scientific consensus on global warming.

    I am willing to wager that you are shilling for the Oil Lobby….

  40. Jim says:

    IQ correlates well with other measures of intelligence. For example it correlates well with estimates of people’s intelligence by others. For chess players it correlates well with their FIDE ratings.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  41. @Santoculto

    You’re a idiot, ”ic”, 😉

    Ever since Mr Unz gave us the ability to block commenters individually, this site has become SO much more readable and accessible. My own rule of thumb is to block all comments from those who use ad hominem attacks (also those who flog their own blogs and those who post word salad again and again). With Santo here the list is getting into double digits and the effect is remarkable. For the umpteenth time, thanks Ron!

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  42. @Realist

    Maybe not infallible, but a lot less fallible than religion.

    Science at its core is the idea of repeatable observable proofs of hypothesis. Water is wet at 70 degrees Fahrenheit not because I was told this, but because every single time I’ve touched it at that temperature I could confirm the wetness. Religion is really the opposite of this. Religion requires we accept an authority on all subjects addressed. We must accept a magic invisible omnipotent and omniscient being that created the unimaginable complexity of the Universe. Yet this being cannot communicate directly with us (although it is deeply deeply concerned about our every thought and action) and instead uses human surrogates. Further, this being, in the course of human history, chose just once to explain itself and issue edicts governing every aspect of our lives and has gone utterly silent for the past couple millennia. Even further, when our observable and testable hypothesis contradict the message from the human surrogate for this all powerful being, we must ignore our observations of Reality.

    The parallels in HBD and AGW are clear. We must ignore all we see every day and believe the received wisdom that sub Saharan Africans are cognitive equals of ashkenazi Jews. Dr Oogabooga is just as qualified as Dr Goldfarbstein. And we cannot reliable predict the weather next week, but must believe that humans are causing current climate change in a climate that has been constantly changing since Earth’s formation. Can we prove Africans are cognitive equals to whites, Asians, and Jews? Can we prove humans have caused climate change (forgetting any question of whether such change may be beneficial or harmful)? As with religion, merely asking these questions draws swift punishment from the self-appointed keepers of the faith.

    • Replies: @nickels
    , @Bliss
  43. @animalogic

    Talk is cheap. Prove your hypothesis. Move to Detroit. Or Haiti.

    • Replies: @animalogic
  44. nickels says:
    @Stan d Mute

    The Church can become what you say. Religion, however is a personal thing that may or may not have anything to do with the church. Science is our relation to the medium sized things in the universe, the book on the table, the thicket we avoid. Religion, on the other hand, is our relation to the infinite, those things science tells us little or nothing about:

    “[man] Or he may find himself obliged (because his reason drives him irresistibly to it) to regard himself as a part of an infinite universe, living in infinite time. And, therefore, in
    respect of the infinitely small phenomena of life that influence his behaviour, a rational person must do what in mathematics is called integration: that is, establish a relation to the immediate issues of life, a relation to the entire infinite universe in time and space, conceiving of it as a whole. And the relationship established by man to that whole, of which he feels himself a part and from which he draws guidance for his behaviour, is that which has been, and is called religion”

  45. @Jim

    Correlates well, is not.

    Difficult to understand**

    Still is not enough.

    Civilization decline just show for you, most here, that iq is not enough.

  46. @Stan d Mute

    My English is not perfect and I know that already a long time. I have no, no, you understand well what the word NO means here in this context, no desire to learn to write better in English. for now is this.

    Your comment ” De mut ” was itself an ad hominem.

    ” IC ”, directed implicitly his cowardly comments about my person. He would be kinder to put my name, address me your Free offense, since it is unable to refute my arguments.

    First, I did not understand, and never understand when a person appears and makes this type of comment. You are not talking to himself, is not an internal thought. Please be more clear and objective, I will be kind enough to answer.

    ” Iq ” is a new ideology, because when intellectual inquiry cease and especially when there is no reason to end, then this incompleteness be transformed into an ideology. That’s exactly what happened to all the religions and the modern ideologies.

    I have emphasized several times here that my criticism of the cognitive tests do not have the same nature from that which prevails among liberals. I never said that the cognitive tests do not measure anything to do with intelligence, only that its comprehensiveness is not complete and that this should be taken into consideration. I also believe that the theory of multiple intelligences is not entirely wrong, however, and it could be applied together with the cognitive tests, to improve the understanding of human intelligence.

    But, that most can not understand what I write, or they do not want to accept that i was right (again).

    Do not have pity for ” IC ”, ” some ” people deserve to hear the truth, and others like me, agree to play the role of ‘devil’s advocate’ ‘.

  47. Bliss says:
    @Stan d Mute

    Can we prove Africans are cognitive equals to whites, Asians, and Jews?

    People of african ancestry created the grandest and longest lasting of the earliest civilizations:

    Africans are represented in the most cognitively challenging professions, arts and sports. In the US for example african-americans have reached the top in most fields of endeavour: from President of the nation to Supreme Court Justice to Head of NASA to CEOs of Fortune 100 corporations to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff etc

    In Africa the richest man is no longer some euro colonial diamond monopolist but a self-made Nigerian billionaire.

    African genius has created most genres of american music which dominates the world. The fastest growing religious movement in the world, Pentecostalism, started in a Los Angeles church led by a black pastor. Etc, etc

    You are like the fools who once claimed that blacks could never be quarterbacks because they are not the cognitive equals of whites…

  48. @Stan d Mute

    Thankyou for your comment Mr Mute.
    I am not sure whether talk is cheap or not. Pity i am not a Clinton or a Blair etc: from what i have read, THEIR talk is NOT cheap.

    Regardless of the cheapness of “talk” you seem to be singularly lacking in it. What DO your references to moving to Haiti or Detroit actually mean ?
    Yes, i know you are implying that i have no lived experience of … something. That in short, whatever views i have are of little value. OK. But, your view is a little persumptous, isn’t it ? How do you arrive at such a belief ? Is it axiomatic that persons who express themselves as i have must, ipso facto, be lacking in lived experience ?
    Now, i’m merely guessing, but i think you believe that i would change my views on matters were i to move to Detroit etc.
    Why ?
    Both places have been subject to economic or natural forces. Both places are suggestive of the corruption of contemporary politics and economics. Both are zones of material and moral devastation. I have no doubt that a mere visit to either would be a profound “learning experience”. Would such a visit result in a shift in my views ? I dont know.

    As for proving my “hypothosis”? I am gratified to think you believe i actually HAVE a hypothosis. However, if i am to prove “my” hypothosis, you must forgive me if i resort to words….cheap or not.

  49. Mr. Weissberg’s anti-statist leaning is belied by his credulous use of data complied and published by educational bureaucracies as evidence for his racialist argument about inherent cognitive abilities. Not having done the classroom-by-classroom test administration, scoring, and calculations himself (or, if he has, he doesn’t mention it), why does Mr. Weissberg nonetheless trust the educationist establishment — the US Dept. of Education, state educational bureaucracies, and large for-profit corporations that stand to make lots of money as the “need” for further testing is displayed annually by the results that are obtained through use of their products — while mistrusting the scientific establishment regarding climate change?

  50. woodNfish says:

    You don’t really understand science, do you Weissberg? Science isn’t based on “personal experience”. It is based on empirical evidence. There is no empirical evidence of “global warming” so it isn’t factual, its promotion is fraud, and it is no different than religion. Your last paragraph is almost laughable in its ignorance. Stick to sociology – it isn’t science either.

  51. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    But… MSNBC told me global warming was the worst thing evah, after Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, gender-mislabeling, racism, and sexism. It’s clear we must fight terrible terrible awful nightmares, like calling a terrorist “a terrorist”, but after all of these battles are won, then its on to beating some sense into those knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing Cis-gendered evil white men who STILL insist on using toilet paper instead of leaves.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Robert Weissberg Comments via RSS
Becker update V1.3.2
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.