|
Global warming and evolution: here's a discussion point.
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Ang ' ela_ie |
Anyone read Seed Magazine? On their website they do a Daily Zeitgeist, and one of today's items is the following:
| quote: | Colder climates favor civilization even among Whites alone
Last year I had a crazy idea about how winged insects might influence civilization. I only pointed to winged insects as an exemplar, not to suggest a "Mosquito Theory of History" or something stupid and sexy like that. The reasoning is simple: insects are more likely to be winged in certain climates, and that means more effective vectors of disease in such environments; and a greater disease burden makes you dumber, more tired, and more irritable, which stunts the growth of civilization. [1] A qualitative follow-up post looked at where civilizations have ever appeared, and in what climate types they existed.
Well, now I've done some quantitative work, and it turns out that I was right. One critique against an international study is that natural selection may have adapted people to be more or less civilized in different environments, so that the only influence of climate is as a selection pressure for genetic change. There are at least two such studies already out there: one by Templer & Arikawa (2006) and another by Vanhanen (2004). I'm arguing that it matters even when people start out pretty much the same genetically, so I will look just at the US. It varies enough in climate and degree of civilization that any correlation should jump out.
Motivation
In particular, I will look at the correlation, on the level of states, between average annual temperature and the average IQ of Whites, post-secondary degrees awarded to Whites per capita, and the percent of the White population that's imprisoned. I only look at Whites in order to avoid the confound of climate with racial composition (for example, the cold Mountain states are heavily White, while Blacks make up a larger fraction in the hot Southeast).
The reason I look at basic measures like IQ or being in jail, as opposed to the loftier things we associate with civilization, is that smarts is the key determinant of propelling the institutions of civilization forward, while crime gives us a good rough idea of how barbaric we are on a personal level. I'm sure that governments can improve or screw things up too, but it's the raw cognitive and behavioral materials that matter most, as Lynn and Varhanen show in IQ and the Wealth of Nations (see all GNXP posts on this topic). Moreover, studies of representative samples of the population always show a strong influence of IQ on how cultured a person is. See, for example, a National Endowment for the Arts report on the demographics of arts attendees (PDF p. 19), which shows that attendance increases nearly monotonically by education level.
|
I will post his figure results.
The rest of the analysis, methods, and discussion is here:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/07/co...ation-even.php#
Interesting? Bull?
COR Version: Global warming is making you stupider. Discuss. |
|
|
| Ted Promo |
| stupid like a fox. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by tubularbills
Excessive global warming caused by the practices of humans is a myth. |
He was going to post it as soon as he saw this thread anyway, I figured I'd get the idiocy out of the way for him early.
:) |
|
|
| Ang ' ela_ie |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
He was going to post it as soon as he saw this thread anyway, I figured I'd get the idiocy out of the way for him early.
:) |
It's possible that we are witnessing the first global warming-evolution positive feedback here... the global warming is making him believe that there is no such thing as global warming, which leads him to emit more carbon, which induces further global warming, which leads him to believe that there is no such thing as global warming..... |
|
|
| iammesol |
| Extremely radical, but until proven wrong, I have no reason to call it bull. |
|
|
| RJT |
The thing I love about the whole "natures cycles" argument is that people championing it are probably right to a degree - what they all seem to fail to realize is that saying "the Earth is going to survive this heating/cooling cycle" is not same as saying "humans will survive this heating/cooling cycle."
Sure, this could all be one big cycle that's repeating itself in some bastardized form right now - that doesn't mean it isn't a cycle where practices by humans causes excessive warming and the earth reaches a breaking point and bites back. |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
He was going to post it as soon as he saw this thread anyway, I figured I'd get the idiocy out of the way for him early.
:) |
Two Thousand ing Eight and we're still cockblocking this issue more than ever...
| quote: |
White House puts warming threats on back burner
It rejects the EPA staff's findings on greenhouse gases and passes the issue on to the next president.
By James Gerstenzang and Janet Wilson, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
July 12, 2008
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration Friday rejected its own experts' conclusion that global warming poses a threat to the public welfare, launching a comment period that will delay action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at least until the next president takes office.
The Environmental Protection Agency published a 588-page examination of the issues surrounding greenhouse gases but refused to adopt its staff's finding that such gases could cause disastrous flooding and drought and affect food and water supplies.
The White House portrayed the EPA's original proposal to limit emissions as an "onerous command-and-control regulation" that "would impose crippling costs on the economy" without reducing the gases widely held responsible for the warming climate.
Environmentalists angrily denounced the White House for what they said was political interference with government experts' proposed rules.
The political reaction also was sharp, though some industry and business spokesmen agreed that economic burdens need to be considered.
California's Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said the administration has never believed in global warming nor in doing anything about it. He asserted that the U.S. did not want to act because China and India have not done so. In an interview scheduled to be broadcast Sunday on ABC News' "This Week," the governor added: "We don't wait for other countries to do the same thing. That's what makes America No. 1."
An EPA official who worked on the rejected reports said Friday's announcement was unprecedented because agency staffers did not have a chance to respond to other agencies' criticism. "How do you respond to comments you've never even seen?" said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of fear of retribution.
The impetus for federal action came from a Supreme Court decision in April 2007 that rebuked the administration and ruled that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were air pollutants subject to federal regulation under the Clean Air Act. If the EPA found they were a threat to the public, the court said, the agency was required to produce regulations to reduce the risk.
By not taking a stand on the health impact of the pollutants and seeking new public comment instead, the administration extended the period before the government can act beyond Jan. 20, 2009 -- when the next president will be inaugurated.
At the same time, it added fuel to criticism that President Bush has dragged his feet on the issue throughout his 7 1/2 years in office, avoiding a concerted government attack on global warming.
Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence, said: "The White House has taken an earnest attempt by their own climate experts to respond to the Supreme Court's mandate to address global warming pollution and turned it into a Frankenstein's monster."
Bill Kovacs, a U.S. Chamber of Commerce vice president, said the EPA staff's proposals were "an unprecedented power grab by unelected officials who want to stretch the application of the Clean Air Act into regulation of the entire economy."
Unwilling to commit
Bush returned Wednesday from Japan, where the Group of 8 summit of leading industrialized nations set a goal -- but not a binding commitment -- to cut emissions in half by 2050.
One day earlier, a former EPA official, Jason K. Burnett, said that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had worked to alter sworn congressional testimony provided by a federal official in January to play down global warming and head off regulation of greenhouse gases.
White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said in a written statement that the EPA staff proposal would have given the agency "unprecedented power affecting anyone who uses or produces energy -- from stores and manufacturing facilities to power plants, farmers, even schools, hospitals and apartment buildings." She said the EPA would have functioned "like a local planning and zoning board, with potentially devastating effects on our economy."
In a conference call with reporters, EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson said he would receive comments for 120 days on how the government should regulate greenhouse gases, a step that Joan Claybrook, president of the public-interest lobbying group Public Citizen, said would guarantee that "the issue will not be dealt with until a new administration comes to town."
"The interference of the White House in this process is unconscionable, and its decision to run out the clock rather than take action during its tenure in office is a disgrace," she said.
Interference denied
Despite the Supreme Court ruling, Johnson said the Clean Air Act was "the wrong tool for addressing greenhouse gases" because it would require the agency to set separate standards for a large number of industries, a process he said could take years to complete and lead to multiple court cases. Rather, he said, Congress should produce a legislative answer.
In a draft of the document completed in May, EPA staff members concluded that regulations reducing greenhouse gas emissions could save $2 trillion through lowered gasoline costs and other benefits over 30 years. In the final document, that figure was slashed more than 50%, to $830 billion. The lower figure is based largely on an estimate that gasoline will cost $2 a gallon over the next three decades, less than half the current price.
EPA Press Secretary Jonathan Shradar said he did not know why the changes had been made. But he said accusations of White House interference were "flatly wrong."
Shradar said the document issued Friday was reviewed by Brian Minnix, associate EPA administrator for policy, who is married to Susan Dudley, the regulatory chief at the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Johnson made public several critical comments from senior officials undercutting his staff's work, including one from Dudley. He also disclosed a letter from the secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy and Transportation in which they said the suggestion that the Clean Air Act could be used to regulate greenhouse gas emissions recognized neither "the enormous -- and, we believe, insurmountable -- burdens, difficulties and costs" nor the likely benefits.
Edward P. Lazear, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, and John H. Marburger, the White House science advisor, wrote that the proposed regulations were cumbersome and would be an economic burden.
james.gerstenzang @latimes.com
[email protected] |
|
|
|
| Ang ' ela_ie |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
The thing I love about the whole "natures cycles" argument is that people championing it are probably right to a degree |
Some good news here is that these people are becoming less and less. Not that they are turning around and subscribing to anthropogenic global warming, but instead they are saying, "okay, it's not natural. But don't worry! Because we can adapt." Or "the free market system will solve the problem."
Pat Michaels is actually the king of this theory. He used to be a complete denialist. Now he's turned around and is giving presentations to Puerto Rico for 3000 bucks a pop on how they can adapt to a warming environment. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
| I always knew that global warming and stupidity were closely connected. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
I always knew that global warming and stupidity were closely connected. |
:stongue: |
|
|
| adi_hanson |
The true thesis on global warming is that in 1 year we will be all dead unless we pay our governments extra taxes to stop it , which i dont think will work at all (gun cocking sound) ok,ok will work and save us all from death.
But really , the people(globalwarmists)who pedal this global 1 degree oh were dead senario , are geeks , nerds, weirdo's and everyone told them to shut up in class at school ,why not now?
i give you some george washington and friends if you keep your stone clad proof of a stable climate away and destroy it.
ok
and the cycle continues |
|
|
| RJT |
Alright then. Problem solved.
/thread? |
|
|
|
|
