Next spring, the New York Times' genetics correspondent Nicholas Wade will publish:
A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History
Release date: May 6, 2014
Drawing on startling new evidence from the mapping of the genome, an explosive new account of the genetic basis of race and its role in the human story
Fewer ideas have been more toxic or harmful than the idea of the biological reality of race, and with it the idea that humans of different races are biologically different from one another. For this understandable reason, the idea has been banished from polite academic conversation. Arguing that race is more than just a social construct can get a scholar run out of town, or at least off campus, on a rail. Human evolution, the consensus view insists, ended in prehistory.
Inconveniently, as Nicholas Wade argues in A Troublesome Inheritance, the consensus view cannot be right. And in fact, we know that populations have changed in the past few thousand years—to be lactose tolerant, for example, and to survive at high altitudes. Race is not a bright-line distinction; by definition it means that the more human populations are kept apart, the more they evolve their own distinct traits under the selective pressure known as Darwinian evolution. For many thousands of years, most human populations stayed where they were and grew distinct, not just in outward appearance but in deeper senses as well.
Wade, the longtime journalist covering genetic advances for The New York Times, draws widely on the work of scientists who have made crucial breakthroughs in establishing the reality of recent human evolution. The most provocative claims in this book involve the genetic basis of human social habits. What we might call middle-class social traits—thrift, docility, nonviolence—have been slowly but surely inculcated genetically within agrarian societies, Wade argues. These “values” obviously had a strong cultural component, but Wade points to evidence that agrarian societies evolved away from hunter-gatherer societies in some crucial respects. Also controversial are his findings regarding the genetic basis of traits we associate with intelligence, such as literacy and numeracy, in certain ethnic populations, including the Chinese and Ashkenazi Jews.
Wade believes deeply in the fundamental equality of all human peoples. He also believes that science is best served by pursuing the truth without fear, and if his mission to arrive at a coherent summa of what the new genetic science does and does not tell us about race and human history leads straight into a minefield, then so be it. This will not be the last word on the subject, but it will begin a powerful and overdue conversation.
Posts
118 comments:
It will "begin" the conversation? Well, maybe for people who get their information from the New York Times.
"He also believes that science is best served by pursuing the truth without fear..."
Yikes! For him, I mean: that won't sit well with the higher-ups.
Liberalism went off the rails when it stopped being about equality before the law and becoming ever more about equality of outcome.
This is nice, but I learned from reading Steve Sailer that the problem is not so much that the New York Times science writers don't understand race and intelligence as it is that more often than not, they are not the ones writing and controlling the conversation on those topics.
I mean the president himself read (or at least "read") The Sports Gene this fall and it's not like he immmediately had Eric Holder call off the dogs.
Will Nicholas Wade mention how Britons are better governors than a certain more intelligent Eastern European high-IQ group? This is what really matters; it is not resolute intelligence, it intelligence matched with a propensity for good governance and the highest IQ white group fails miserably in that regard. But to mention it, may be to mention there are no truly chosen ones.
I have long felt the taboo against HBD is coming to an end. I give it another decade at the most.
There goes Steve's theory that the word "controversial" is no longer used as a come-on.
What are the odds he'll lose his gig at the NYT for arguing that "agrarian" whites have greater genetic predisposition to "thrift, docility, nonviolence" than descendants of more tropical climes? (Is he even going to logically unpack what "eurasian agrarian vs. rest" means today?) Is he famous enough to be the subject of one of those classic 200 Posts of Hate? An obscure Jason Richwine was. Maybe Brooks will reference him in a column and set the process in motion, culminating in a tantrically indignant Ta-Nehisi Coates post dropping block quotes from whatever history book he's currently reading.
"Wade believes deeply in the fundamental equality of all human peoples."
The jacket text is going to confuse people. It needed some Pinkeresque wording about equality as the right be treated as an individual and not as a member of a group (versus the claim that races and ethnicities are biologically indistinguishable).
Good God, people, show some appreciation for the courage Wade is showing here. He had a very nice sinecure indeed at The Times, and chose instead to write of the most disagreeable truths in all our culture. It far surpasses the winking at these taboos which, say, Pinker engaged in when writing The Blank Slate (where Pinker claims that there's no good evidence for racial differences on socially important traits because...well, just because, and that'll do it).
Wade has made an appointment with vilification.
If it at all lives up to its billing, this book promises to be a major moment in the inevitable cultural shift brought about by the destruction of taboos. Let's show it some respect.
Wow. Good for him and thanks to Henry and Greg for their book that must have made it easier for Wade to write his.
Will the Elites ignore this book, do their darndest to twist its contents, or find some way to spin things so that its still the White Man's Fault?
Wade was born in 1942 approx.....maybe he is too old to care about possible ostracisation, maybe he has no children in need of employment.....heck maybe he has just had enough of PC
The expression "Elderly Tourette's Syndrome" was I think coined by Steve (at some point later than this, or I would have stolen it).
Perhaps we are living through an outbreak of "Seventy-ish Brit Tourette's Syndrome."
candid_observer said...
Good God, people, show some appreciation for the courage Wade is showing here. He had a very nice sinecure indeed at The Times, and chose instead to write of the most disagreeable truths in all our culture. It far surpasses the winking at these taboos which, say, Pinker engaged in when writing The Blank Slate (where Pinker claims that there's no good evidence for racial differences on socially important traits because...well, just because, and that'll do it).
__________________________________
Well-put.
Wade was born in 1942 approx.....maybe he is too old to care about possible ostracisation, maybe he has no children in need of employment.....heck maybe he has just had enough of PC
_____________________________
Two things:
1) The evidence has kept mounting and it couldn't be confined to just papers scientists read
2) The guy cares about science and exploring the truths and falsehoods it reveals. He wouldn't want to be part of a cover-up and his place as THE science writer of the NYT brings with it great responsibility, I am sure he understands.
"The most provocative claims in this book involve the genetic basis of human social habits. What we might call middle-class social traits—thrift, docility, nonviolence—have been slowly but surely inculcated genetically within agrarian societies, Wade argues."
Should we place our bets now about whether another leading intellectual will fall for the idiot test once more, just like Steven Pinker and Adrian Raine? There are so many interesting studies about the genes for violence. Please stop telling us that 77% of Chinese people have the warrior gene. Oh, and save us the stupid preaching that no individual genes have much effect on behavior. When Brunner syndrome was discovered in 1993, the media was so interested. Twenty years go by before another case is discovered, and now nobody cares or knows. When did boredom become so evangelical?
This might get Wade fired, but I doubt it. I'm guessing people just won't focus on anything to do with race and IQ, but instead all the action will be about whether race is a social construct or a natural kind.
Reading the description it looks like he's just going to talk about population differences... which is fine... but I recently read Arthur Keith's Ethics and Evolution(which he wrote from a group selectionist perspective during WWII) and I think a book like that which talks about 1. population differences 2. group formation and behavior 3. bio-political ethics is needed.
The jacket text is going to confuse people. It needed some Pinkeresque wording about equality as the right be treated as an individual and not as a member of a group (versus the claim that races and ethnicities are biologically indistinguishable).
Pinker had the good sense not to talk about race in The Blank Slate, and I don't think he's ever broached the subject publicly. It will be very interesting to see what Wade has to say and what becomes of him. I predict he will avoid discussing IQ, except perhaps high Jewish IQ, and will totally avoid any serious evaluation of the possibility that blacks' various cognitive and behavioral shortcomings might have any genetic basis.
I think the features that all humans share will actually become more significant and interesting once the HBD taboo is lifted. We'll start to have a balanced understanding of the degrees to which we differ and the degrees to which we don't. I know the focus of this blog is diversity, and rightly so, but don't forget there are also anthropological universals. These universals have been themselves quite controversial to talk about in that field, and Pinker made use of them to argue that the anthropological orthodoxy, that there are no biological constraints on what kinds of cultures arise, couldn't possibly be correct.
Re: Anonymous said...
"Liberalism went off the rails when it stopped being about equality before the law and becoming ever more about equality of outcome."
Which would be about the time of the French Revolution -- if not earlier to the Levelers (1645-6) of the English Civil War.
As Paul Gottfried points out, that's the trouble with equality. Eventually some people demand to take theirs neat.
Tim Wise should write the prologue.
Wade wrote a whole chapter about race in his book "Before the Dawn". He keeps his job because TPTB know that they've been riding a tiger with affirmative action, disparate impact, etc, and they want off before they're devoured. Wade's task is to move the discussion rightward without spilling any blame on the Left. Only the fools are doubling down on racial equality now.
saying "equality" is like a safe word in the world of PC...
I'm not doubting what you're saying, but it seems like it would be very difficult to identify the biological mechanism(s) creating a better- governing population.
Here's hoping some good things come from this books publication. Two African style socialism messes come to mind. ObamaCare and present day South Africa. With Nelson Mandela's death we got see how many people think that SA has gotten better since Mandela & Crew took over. Most Euros and Americans mistakenly do.
Some European socialisms come off OK. Tolerably OK, and readers here know why.
"maybe he is too old to care about possible ostracisation, maybe he has no children in need of employment"
Maybe, like a lot of us, he is a 1960s liberal who has watched decades and decades of attempts to raise blacks up go by without any discernible result. All the dreams of the 60's civil rights leaders have been fulfilled and then some - no Jim Crow, no more apartheid in South Africa, blacks running their own nations in Africa, decades of affirmative action, dramatic increase in blacks with college degrees, miscegenation laws stricken from the books, blacks in prominent positions in the entertainment industry, even a "black President" (kind of), and yet, despite some individual success stories, on average blacks across the world continue to comprise the most disfunctional population group in any country where they live. Why is this so? At some point answers like "racism" or "culture" (do just stop feeling satifying.
Good luck to Nicholas Wade. I know I'll be buying it, but it's more important that Liberals buy it too.
Yes, he risks being Watsonized but then, may be less than the commenters anticipate. The PC crowd must be quite tired by now of campaigning against scientists, writers and generic informed public that accept evolution. I think the most probable outcome of this growing body of data will be like the situation now in the religious sphere: the masses will continue to believe what our ancestors believed, but they will tolerate the existence of small group of abominable deviate atheists, in this case, the Steve Sailer's SS crowd. Maybe science will develope a two-layer strategy like the Church: one simplified dogma for the masses and one rarefied doctrine for scholars.
When I first saw the the title of this post I was sceptical, but this actually sounds like it might be quite good.
Let me add a ‘hear, hear!’ to Candid Observer’s comment. Good Luck to Nicholas Wade. I hope he has girt his loins.
In every age there are highly esteemed intellectuals who are nonetheless forgotten by subsequent generations. I suspect HBD deniers such as Jared Diamond will have this fate befall them. Pinker and Dawkins should perhaps consider whether it is time to stop being such cowards.
Nicholas Wade has a long track record of dealing knowledgeably and honestly with tough topics. This is his highest dive, however. At least he knows what he's in for. Presumably.
"Tim Wise should write the prologue."
Tim Wise, yes Tim Wise. No there's a guy. Human adaptation, yes Tim Wise. Adaptation to the time, to the curious times. Making a buck riding the zeitgeist wave straight to the bank. Yes Tim the Wise.
Holy Mother of God, is Race Realism going to become part of the public discourse?
Looks like the damn is about to break. Pinker and Cochran maybe chipped away at it enough to allow the flood.
W hat an elaborate way to resign.
thaGood God, people, show some appreciation for the courage Wade is showing here.
Well if it's all that, then he's gonna find out how much Taki Theodoracopulos pays for a 1500 word essay.
I'm sure he will give credit to those who have been saying this for years. ;-)
Maybe, like a lot of us, he is a 1960s liberal who has watched decades and decades of attempts to raise blacks up go by without any discernible result. All the dreams of the 60's civil rights leaders have been fulfilled and then some - no Jim Crow, no more apartheid in South Africa, blacks running their own nations in Africa, decades of affirmative action, dramatic increase in blacks with college degrees, miscegenation laws stricken from the books, blacks in prominent positions in the entertainment industry, even a "black President" (kind of), and yet, despite some individual success stories, on average blacks across the world continue to comprise the most disfunctional population group in any country where they live. Why is this so? At some point answers like "racism" or "culture" (do just stop feeling satifying.
Hey, look everyone, the Emperor has no clothes, he's buck naked!
Quoting Jeff: "Will Nicholas Wade mention how Britons are better governors than a certain more intelligent Eastern European high-IQ group?"
Jeff might have meant the English. The Britons were the untamed semi-savages that the English conquerors drove into the hinterlands of the British Isles, and the American South.
Nicholas Wade believes in genetic differences between races, but deeply believes in the equality of all human beings. He also believes that we have to stop people from abusing the welfare system, that we have to provide food and shelter for the homeless, and that we have to promote equal rights for women but change the abortion laws to protect the right to life yet still somehow maintain women's freedom of choice.
The table stares at Nicholas Wade uncomfortably.
Don't get your hopes up. Even the copy quoted by Steve does the usual tap dance (willingly mentions Jewish IQ, neglects to mention black IQ). This tap dance exists today, and the cognitive dissonance (between accepting different IQs between jews/christians, but not between blacks/whites) is easily maintained. One more book supporting that cognitive dissonance is not going to overthrow the paradigm. People can lie to themselves for a long long time.
Just for the record, Wade hasn't actually had a job at the Times for a couple of years. They offered him a retirement package in (I think) 2011 and he took it. One of the conditions is, he can still contribute pieces to the Science pages on an as-I-please basis, paid by the piece.
A friend remarked to me that the book's title is a bit apologetic & gives too much to the enemy.
I agree, though the title may have been insisted on by Wade's publisher. I would have preferred him go the Robert Conquest route.
After the opening up of the Soviet archives in 1991, detailed information was released that Conquest argued supported his conclusions. When Conquest's publisher asked him to expand and revise The Great Terror, Conquest is famously said to have suggested the new version of the book be titled I Told You So, You Fucking Fools.
TROUBLESOME...STARTLING...EXPLOSIVE....
Is this a science book or an ad for a 1950s movie about atomic radiation creating gigantic women and town crushing insects?
To bad that "In a world..." guy is dead. He could have done the books on tape version.
"Pinker had the good sense not to talk about race in The Blank Slate, and I don't think he's ever broached the subject publicly."
I distinctly recall him saying somewhere (either one of his books or his blog) that no good will probably come from studying racial differences [he probably meant, no good for him]. But he's getting closer to retirement age, and he did get involved into the Larry Summers debacle a few years ago.
While he's avoiding the race subject probably until he's ready to retire, he's not shy about making comparisons of goyishe kop vs. yidishe kop in his blog. Saying that the goyim are stupid is OK in his milieu (where many are of his persuasion), so long as the goyim in question are white.
Fewer ideas have been more toxic or harmful than the idea of the biological reality of race, and with it the idea that humans of different races are biologically different from one another.
I am really out of step, because I was thinking fewer ideas have been more toxic or harmful than that the foregoing isn't true.
Chinese communist party says ultimate goal is communism... but its policies turn China ever more into a nation of wealth division.
Is the egalitarian rhetoric now just a cynical cover to mask the reality of class divisions?
Elites in China get richer but claim to be working for equality.
Sounds like lib elites here. Getting richer, more privileged, more powerful than the rest of America(and the world) but always pontificating about the goal of equality.
Just a cynical cover to justify their own self-interest?
All I can say is, "wow."
Re: vilification, absolutely. Whatever the Times does with him, he is going to be trashed. No matter how diplomatically he phrases racial IQ differences, he will be vilified.
My guess is that he got a phat advance. What Nissim Taleb calls "f-you money."
Not everybody cares about being hip, cool, and accepted by polite society. As long as you have your own private life in order, and money, you can speak your mind.
Look at Phil Robertson. I don't think he's going to back down.
"Fewer ideas have been more toxic or harmful than the idea of the biological reality of race"
Other than Nazism, I don't know of any evidence of this.
Most culture clashes and violence had to do with tribalism than any notion of biology of race.
"but it's more important that Liberals buy it too."
They won't, and in any case, I disagree. Liberals are impervious to reason. They aren't a numerical majority in the US. Neither are hard core conservatives. Most Americans are sheep, as most British people are.
What's more important is for a conservative realist elite to take power in the US and ram through some important legislation.
I'm not hopeful that will happen, because (a) latter day conservatism is a mess, whereas latter day liberalism is coherent and (b) there are no leaders, for many reasons too complicated to go into. (I would like a conservative Mandela, LOL.)
But that's how I see it.
http://youtu.be/KAiWVAOYbGM
Nominally feminist but also a male fantasy of sexy babes.
Among Times readers the following propositions are taken to be axiomatically true: (1) There is no such thing as race, and (2) Jews are the Master Race.
A liberal may be described as a person who can hold two or more mutually contradictory ideas at the same time without feeling any intellectual discomfort.
Mr Wade has stumbled upon a whole series of potential best sellers.
Water is wet!
Fire will burn you!
The sky is blue!
When is Steve Sailer going to write a book? Given his self-proclaimed status as a Great and Original Thinker, his output - a period piece on Obama laden with white panic - is pretty inconsequential.
Since he clearly believes that people aren't equal -- either individually or in mass ethnic and racial groups, why does he believe "deeply in the fundamental equality of all human peoples."?
Does he believe that or did the reviewer feel he had to throw that in?
What does it even mean? What does "fundamental equality" mean?
This will not be the last word on the subject, but it will begin a powerful and overdue conversation.
These people are so odd.
Why is it that cultural/religious/scientific "conversations" don't "begin" until the New York Times notices them?
Or is it even more local than that? Must Park Slope and the Upper East Side notice it before anyone else?
New Yorkers are like Columbus arriving in America, meeting people who have been there thousands of years already and then announcing that he "discovered" America.
I see the publisher is the mainstream Penguin Press, which I'm not sure bodes ill or well. But if anyone imagines this book will represent anything akin to a game-changer, then they've another think coming.
What does it even mean? What does "fundamental equality" mean?
We all walk upright, use language, and watch movies.
It's like both Einstein and a low IQ person can enjoy baseball and beer.
If diversity is a great thing, what is so evil about the notion of biological diversity? Would it be better if biology was the same in everyone? In that case, the world should be made up of perfect clones who are all alike.
Is every race just a clone of another race? How boring.
Ha. What will twits like PZ Myers now do? The NYTimes science writer discusses how race as a topic is actually important.
"What we might call middle-class social traits—thrift, docility, nonviolence—have been slowly but surely inculcated genetically within agrarian societies, Wade argues."
Middle East/North Africa, then China/India, then Southern Europe and New Guinea, then the Americas(?).
Do we have accurate enough archaeological (or plant genetics) records to be sure about the other regions?
His will be a book about the work of other people, their research.
How delightful that the progressive left will have actual science shoved down their throats. Will they swallow, hard, or try to spit it out?
I have for the last several years preferred to call them them Intellectual Hillbillies.
BTW, I had to laugh at the Duck Dynasty kerfuffle. I've never watched the show but it's hard to escape knowing a bit about the guy and his family.
Am I to understand he said that homosexuality was "illogical"?
Well, if so, he has it right. There is no evolutionary explanation for its existence and those who read Cochran are aware of that, yet the Left never wants to know what causes homosexuality. Their "scientific curiosity" is never piqued. That it exists is simply wonderful in their eyes.
That a backwoodsman has more sense than they in saying it's illogical is too funny.
Again, who are the "hillbillies"?
"Holy Mother of God, is Race Realism going to become part of the public discourse?"
Two possible things are afoot.
1. Wade will get the Murray treatment and be disappeared.
2. The science is now so overwhelming on the side of group genetic differences that libs need to own this issue somehow. So, they might be easing towards that with safe writers like Epstein and Wade rather than giving recognition to the 'rightwing' race realists who've been saying this for so very long.
It's like feminists used to be anti-sexuality, but with the rise of madonna and MTV and the like, they began to feel foolish still pontificating in their overalls about 'misogyny'. So, they gradually found ways to make feminism own the sexiness as a form of empowerment and self-fulfillment.
So, one side can make a 180 degree turn in its positions and still maintain its 'ideological purity'.
It's like Chinese Communist Party adopting capitalism but calling it socialist path toward eventual communism. There is no limit to which people can lie to themselves.
American conservatives are no different. Many of them went from flag-waving gung ho 'my country right or wrong' sort of people to 'brothers and sisters, why are we fighting' folks. Though there is still a large pro-war contingent among conservatives, many conservatives are turned off by neocon-ism and interventionism and 'my country right or wrong', especially when US is now run by Obama and homos.
Obama said he never heard Wright say those awful things. But when he could no longer deny it, he said "OF COURSE, he heard them... but but but ...' lots of excuses, and he was lauded for telling the truth.. though he'd completely reversed himself, which means he lied twice: (1) I never heard Wright say such things (2) Of course, I heard it...
Same here with race and evolution. Though libs had long opposed the biological reality of race, they are now looking for a way to say, OF COURSE we knew differences existed all along and look how wonderful it is that we are so diverse in our variations, and we should all celebrate that. It's like Epstein's book says we should CELEBRATE the fact that West Africans can run faster.
With more data coming out on race and evolution, libs are gonna have to face the music somehow. If they just keep flatly denying it, they will be like flat-earthers.
So, we are seeing instances of the gradualist approach. Pinker laid the ground work for this, especially in bumping the likes of Gladwell off the pedestal. That way, liberal falsehoods can be replaced by 'liberal' truths since Pinker too is a liberal. That way, even as a liberalism truism is discredited, it is still replaced by what is nominally a liberal position since a liberal spoke the truth.
So, what we are seeing is an attempt to 'liberalize' the race and evolution issue. It used to be liberals said NO and race realists on the right said YES. Libs are looking for a safe way to own the YES as it's becoming ever more undeniable given recent discoveries. Besides, the great patron saint of liberalism, St. Stephen J. Gould has been exposed as a total phony.
But instead of giving credit where it's due(to the race realist 'right'), libs are having writers on their side say what has already been said by the other side. This way, libs can gradually come to own the issue and give it a spin to their favor... and most sheeple on their side will follow along.
How do I know this?
When Lib elites once said freedom of speech is sacrosanct and even extreme speech must be protected, liberal masses nodded along. Today, lib elites say certain speech is 'hateful' and should not be protected cuz 'hate speech is not free speech', and lib masses nod along just the same.
When Lib elites said sexual images of women are 'misogynist' and 'male chauvinist', the lib masses followed along. Today, lib elites say stuff like porn is empowering, and lib masses follow along again as mindless sheep.
So, if libs began to talk about racial differences but give it a nice liberal spin about the wonders of biological diversity, the lib masses will follow along and celebrate how wonderful it is that blacks can run so fast and how wonderful it is that Chinese can do math so well. Sheeple.
And no one will notice. It's like no one notices that Mandela said 'Arafat was a great freedom fighter' and that Israel was very cozy with apartheid South Africa. Instead, we have Zionists who continue to support the oppression of Palestinians praising Mandela to high heaven, as if new black-ruled South Africa and Zionists have always been bosom buddies.
Well, most Americans seem to think so. Sheeple are so dumb. They can even be made to hate an entire nation--Russia--and find it evil because.... it doesn't allow 'gay parades'.
"Pinker had the good sense not to talk about race in The Blank Slate, and I don't think he's ever broached the subject publicly."
I distinctly recall him saying somewhere (either one of his books or his blog) that no good will probably come from studying racial differences
____________________________
And Pinker looks silly having said that what with the medical advances that benefit people by paying attention to their racial make-up. The research will continue and he'll look even more stupid.
"When is Steve Sailer going to write a book? Given his self-proclaimed status as a Great and Original Thinker, his output - a period piece on Obama laden with white panic - is pretty inconsequential."
First, why should whites be happy with what's going on? Second, Steve has written enough material for a few other books, he just hasn't formatted it into book form. One would be a period piece on the mortgage crisis, another a collection of his movie reviews, yet another a collection of his book reviews. I think he should do it. The future will be more likely to read him if he's available to it in a compact form. Current blogs aren't any more likely to be read in the future than old magazines are now. Electronic books will be read.
"I see the publisher is the mainstream Penguin Press, which I'm not sure bodes ill or well. But if anyone imagines this book will represent anything akin to a game-changer, then they've another think coming."
I don't expect to see Mr. Wade making the rounds of the morning talk shows, do you?
Maybe it's more likely to be a "game changer" in academia and in the topics one can discuss at cocktail parties in Georgetown.
Mr. Wade is distilling the work of other people and the book will have a rich bibliography/footnotes, I presume so they won't attack him personally for telling us what others have actually "discovered."
My sense it that Mr. Wade, respected science writer, is not writing this for the masses but rather putting it out there as a way of saying to academics, "See, it's time you dealt with this."
Remember, the New York Times gave a positive review to Hernstein and Murray's The Bell Curve and JP Rushton's Race, Evolution and Behavior (same review, reviewed together along with another book on intelligence). Maybe it's a twenty-year cycle or something.
Some race realists thought it was a racial glasnost back then, too, just like I see in some of the comments here. Ha! As Santayana said, "That history book on the shelf / Is always repeating itself."
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11126-013-9287-x
The 2-Repeat Allele of the MAOA Gene Confers an Increased Risk for Shooting and Stabbing Behaviors
Kevin M. Beaver,
J. C. Barnes,
Brian B. Boutwell
The West will only acknowledge HBD when it's 'safe' (for the untermensch) to do so, such as that there's gene therapy or brain augmentation, or, perhaps such a safety net that the unters don't need to work, ie there's no penalty for being dumb. I wonder if the political correctness is so thick - with gay marriage & the concepts of 'fat shaming', microaggressions, 'X privilege' - that it's socially safe to discuss the truth now. Ie that at large we're collectively sensitive and well enough behaved, socially, that it's safer to acknowledge realities.
Probably not, but it's an idea.
Fewer[sic] ideas have been more toxic or harmful than the idea of the biological reality of race, ...
I can think of one: lying about and suppressing knowledge.
I can think of two: Socialism.
Some commenters have expressed the idea that this is another piece of evidence of a change in public attitudes.
I don't think it works that way.
I had a professor in college who explained science as the piling up of true facts. He was a nice guy but hardly the most subtle of thinkers. Science has not proceeded that way. It seems to advance with mini-revolutions. Old ideas are over thrown - sometimes spectacularly - all at once. Darwin didn't just slowly and inexorably replace Lamarkianism. There was a period of vehement public debate with strong positions expressed strongly - think Scopes Monkey Trial.
There is also the phenomenon of Cognitive Dissonance which is related to the phenomenon of belief after a disproven prophecy. The cult messiah will predict the end of the world on Tuesday. But on Wednesday after the world failed to end, the believers don't just discard their former beliefs - they believe more passionately than ever.
The best modern example of this can be seen among Global Warming Alarmists. I can remember quite clearly the predictions of thirty years ago. But today is a world that remains relatively cool the faith of Warmists remains secure. Mere bald facts do not shake the faith of the true believers.
Parenthetical note - the mechanism of CO2 is undoubtedly true in the lab and it must be operating also in the wild but other factors obviously are also in play. No one should be surprised to learn that we don't understand everything.
In HBD I think as the evidence mounts there will be a small eroding of support for radical equality, but that may be a long way off. When the popular expectations and attitudes among whites about race finally alters, it will likely be all at once. There are major institutions with huge investments in the current racial theories. They will fight for any kind of tenuous logic that supports the crazy quilt of radical egalitarianism.
Albertosaurus
I think it's rather likely that Wade is reading these comments, so...
Good luck Nick!!!
Wade believes deeply in the fundamental equality of all human peoples…
I suspect that statement – as much as I agree with it - will raise hackles aplenty among NYT readers, unless accompanied by an extended fit of kowtowing to the paladins of political correctness. When someone says he believes in the fundamental equality of people, he sounds if he believes in equality, in principle (i.e., not necessarily in all cases). It is like saying someone is legally blind, as in "not really". Also, a statement like the above seems like there is an implicit BUT clause that is eventually going to follow, the anticipation of which will set many teeth on edge.
Finally, from an editorial perspective, what is served by inserting the word "human" into the above sentence? I would say nothing at all. That is the kind of jarring phrasing that an observant editor would catch and cross out at first glance. That leads me to believe that the NYT managers are not assigning this article to the A-team of their support staff, or anyone who is especially enthusiastic about what Wade is writing about.
HA
"Why is it that cultural/religious/scientific "conversations" don't "begin" until the New York Times notices them?"
That's what comes with the territory of being the paper-of-record, in particular these days the liberal-paper-of-record.
And that's why it's so potent that a former prominent Science reporter of The Times should weigh in on the issue as he seems to intend to. Most other writers on this subject can be dismissed as laboring under a political bias or as being obscure. Wade doesn't seem to have any known political baggage, and is certainly not obscure.
My guess is that baggage will be invented for him, and that his scientific credentials will be questioned. But the strain of those objections will be only too obvious to many, allowing some real persuasion of those toward the left side of the gullibility curve.
"A friend remarked to me that the book's title is a bit apologetic & gives too much to the enemy."
I disagree with the friend. It's a fine title, expressing what is a very reasonable attitude toward such group differences, namely, that they aren't by any means a good thing, but there they are.
Ever notice how liberals never just believe, they always believe "deeply"?
People never believe me when I say this, but no one reads the NYT, and those who do go straight to the "Arts" section to drink of the latest vibrancy. If you asked 1000 random blue county voters who Wade is, they wouldn't be able to tell you.
Let me point out that there is a lot of room between the idea that equality means either "equality under the law" and the idea that it means "equality of outcome." Our government needs to embrace policies which embody the idea that everybody's happiness is equally important irrespective of their cognitive ability. As long as they are willing to work hard and play by the rules (in Clinton's words) everybody ought to have a reasonable expectation of a good life in a country as rich as ours.
What kind of policies? Most obviously of course would be putting an end to mass immigration and embracing old-fashioned protectionism against imports from low-wage Goliaths like China. We should also embrace new statutory limitations on the length of the working day as the best way to share the fruits of new labor-saving technologies. A six hour day with double pay for overtime would be about right. Not only would it artificially restrict the supply of labor, thereby driving up its price, but it would be a family friendly working day in houeholds where both parents work. These were the same motives that led to the eight-hour day a century ago.
Wages subsidies are another possibility. The earned income tax credit is flawed but the basic idea is right: it is possible to raised wages above the market level without forcing the employer to pay them or decoupling effort from reward.
We also need to revamp our tax system to make it more progressive while preserving the incentives to save and invest. There is a very old idea in the literature of economics which would accomplish just that, and which computers and the internet have suddenly made practicable. It's called a graduate expendidture tax. Nicholas kaldor wrote a book about it.
A lot of the racial tension in our society has its root in the fear parents have for the future welfare of their children. It the only good life is a life in the upper reaches of the middle-class no wonder parents resent minority set-asides and income redistribution schemes that decouple effort and reward. But if everyone's children could look forward to a good life a lot of these worries would disappear. (Here is pet idea of mine for example.
Our governing elites need to show some courage and imagination if they expect to square the idea of equality with the realities of human biodiversity. Maybe the next generation.
Steve, people have been reading you again:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304367204579268301043949952?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories
" Fewer ideas have been more toxic or harmful than the idea of the biological reality of race, and with it the idea that humans of different races are biologically different from one another. For this understandable reason, the idea has been banished from polite academic conversation. "
Wow.
This is the state of modern science in our world.
Uncomfortable ideas and facts are ignored.
I am very happy that we in America are following the great soviet model of lysenkoism.
Fewer ideas have been more toxic or harmful than the DENIAL of the biological reality of race, and with it the DENIAL that humans of different races are biologically different from one another.
I think we're in for something very good here.
Wade is nobody's fool, and he is equally nobody's lackey.
He is winking broadly already: believing in the "fundamental equality of all human peoples" is in fact to believe in their inequality in all important
(i. e. measurable) ways.
Wade is an English gentleman in one of the most classic ways imaginable: "Eton and Kings" signals both social and intellectual eminence. More importantly, it signifies independence of mind, moral courage, and a refusal to engage in cant.
Wade will surprise and delight us, mark my words.
WSJ has a decent article about the decline of the WASPs and their replacements
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304367204579268301043949952
I just read in a comments section to a book review that the web has lately been taken over by white men suddenly irate over black behavior and the media's bias.
Is that true? I can't devise a search string for Google that would lead me to a confirming or disconfirming source.
Is there any group or person who regularly measures the political pulse of the web? I see that the neo-Nazi skinhead sites are still in business and the Huffington Post is still a giant blog. Anyone could point to either of these to help make any point whatsoever. But is there any authoritative and trustworthy information available?
And if not, why not?
Albertosaurus
He also believes that science is best served by pursuing the truth without fear...
Holy mackerel, that will leave a mark. Our masters won't let that pass without a price being paid. We just aren't ready for a reality-based discussion about genes, race and human history.
New Yorkers are like Columbus arriving in America, meeting people who have been there thousands of years already and then announcing that he "discovered" America.
Yes, crossing the Hudson in 2013 is like crossing the Atlantic in 1492. There's a virgin untapped world out there ready to be discovered.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304367204579268301043949952
"The WASPocracy, as I think of it, lost its confidence and, with it, the power and interest to lead. We are now without a ruling class..."
Roftl
Epstein the Eskimo says.
"Steve, people have been reading you again:"
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304367204579268301043949952?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories
No, Epstein has been beating this horse for a long time: wasps gone... eh... now new elite...
And if meritocracy really rules, how do we end up with candidates like Obama the affirmative action kid, Bush II the blueblood kid, McCain the dummy, Rubio the tard, Palin the knucklehead, Jarrett the mulatto, etc?
"Remember, the New York Times gave a positive review to Hernstein and Murray's The Bell Curve and JP Rushton's Race, Evolution and Behavior (same review, reviewed together along with another book on intelligence)."
We gotta be careful here. Just because someone who wrote for the NY Times gave it a favorite review doesn't mean the paper endorsed it. It's like a film critic of a paper may praise a certain film hated by most of the editorial staff.
John Simon gave a super rave to Riefenstahl's autobiography, but it would be wrong to say NY TIMES gave it a rave. I'll bet most TIMES editorial staff were appalled(and decided not to hire Simon again).
"New Yorkers are like Columbus arriving in America, meeting people who have been there thousands of years already and then announcing that he "discovered" America.
Yes, crossing the Hudson in 2013 is like crossing the Atlantic in 1492. There's a virgin untapped world out there ready to be discovered."
Yes, a world full of ruthless savages to be tamed and boundless resources to be exploited by the right people.
"When is Steve Sailer going to write a book?"
Half Blood Prince was totally ignored by the media, so there is no incentive to write another one. (To be sure, if he writes another one, he can come up with a more eye-catching cover design). Media prefer to ignore Sailer than even condemn him. They simply don't want him to be known because he doesn't fit their stereotype of the raving rightwing looney.
Also, Sailer is not a Big Theory guy. He's a data and fact guy, and that gets less buzz than Big Theory books like Gladwell's stuff.
If you say 10,000 pieces of data show that people are not equal in talent in reality and if another person says 10,000 hrs will make everyone great at something, the latter is gonna get more buzz. People like fantasy and escapism.
Secular Liberalism is the new religion.
If a religious leader factually says miracles don't really exist in the real world, and another leader says miracle really do happen in the real world, most religious folks will go with the latter. It gives them HOPE. Even people who really don't believe in miracles prefer the religious leader who says miracles are possible.
If diversity is a great thing, what is so evil about the notion of biological diversity? Would it be better if biology was the same in everyone? In that case, the world should be made up of perfect clones who are all alike.
________________________
What? You expect their ideology TO MAKE SENSE?
http://briton.askdefine.com/
1 a native or inhabitant of Great Britain [syn: Britisher, Brit]
I'd amend it to include descendant, diaspora peoples.
Few ideas have been more toxic or harmful than the idea of the biological reality of race, and with it the idea that humans of different races are biologically different from one another.
Yeah, 'cept for the delusion of human equality, and with it the idea that the biological reality of race must be suppressed. Oh, and the idea that some ideas need suppressing. Oh, and the idea that people shouldn't be free to do their own thinking, and pursue happiness as they want.
Libs think genocide's okay as long as it involves preventing births instead of ending lives; destroying cultures from within, rather than blowing them up with bombs.
For this understandable reason, the idea has been banished from polite academic conversation.
Nonsense. Commies value egalitarianism, perhaps above all else. They've murdered far more people in the 20th century than all the racists, combined. Nobody has banished communism or egalitarianism from "polite academic conversation." Same goes for "anti-racism," another primary commie value. And anti-ANTI-SEMITISM!!!, too.
~~~
Anon, there's nothing thorny about the abortion issue. Ban abortion, and reform the adoption process as needed. Anyone who reads the abortion "debate" with the word "adoption" in the forefront of his mind knows that there's no debate; the "right to choose" is simply about women who don't want to be pregnant, and has nothing at all to do with being saddled with unwanted children (no one of consequence objects to abortion of the fruits of rape, or in the rare event there are true health hazards). That said, it's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned - too much else to worry about.
After the opening up of the Soviet archives in 1991, detailed information was released that Conquest argued supported his conclusions. When Conquest's publisher asked him to expand and revise The Great Terror, Conquest is famously said to have suggested the new version of the book be titled I Told You So, You Fucking Fools.
Now, there's a man a fella could have a drink with.
While he's avoiding the race subject probably until he's ready to retire, he's not shy about making comparisons of goyishe kop vs. yidishe kop in his blog. Saying that the goyim are stupid is OK in his milieu (where many are of his persuasion), so long as the goyim in question are white.
No biggie. In my circle, we all talk about how much smarter we (Episcopalians) are than those dumbkopf Jews.
Maybe after this is published Steve can return from exile and get a real job.
"Wade believes deeply in the fundamental equality of all human peoples."
But some, it turns out, are more equal than others.
"Fewer ideas have been more toxic or harmful than the idea of the biological reality of race, and with it the idea that humans of different races are biologically different from one another."
- I don't know, the idea that humans of different races AREN'T biologically different seems to be right up there in terms of causing immense harm. Of course adding the term 'Fewer' at the beginning really hikes up the absurdity of the statement. I can think of quite a few- communism, opening the doors to 3rd world immigrants, Obamacare, Islam,just to name a few.
"For this understandable reason, the idea has been banished from polite academic conversation."
- Is it for this reason? Or is it something that we are simply told to believe by those in power, despite all the evidence to the contrary
Is it actually understandable, given that it runs against sanity, against what we know from evolution and much of what we have learned in terms of biological sciences over the last century and a half or so, and against the natural order of things? I guess we are to believe differences in skin color, eye color, average IQ, Impulsivity, skull shape, resistance to different diseases, etc all just arise from the invisible knapsack of white wickedness.
"Arguing that race is more than just a social construct can get a scholar run out of town, or at least off campus, on a rail."
- Yes, because its such a rational idea that it can't stand being openly debated and questioned.
"Human evolution, the consensus view insists, ended in prehistory."
- The consensus view of the public, or the consensus of the elites?
"Parenthetical note - the mechanism of CO2 is undoubtedly true in the lab and it must be operating also in the wild but other factors obviously are also in play. No one should be surprised to learn that we don't understand everything."
What's especially bad is that the global warming alarmism is also refuted by what we do understand (which is being suppressed from the public at large). For example, some of the strongest known volcanoes from the earth's history (including our history) have each kicked out more carbon emissions into the atmosphere than the whole of humanity across all of human history. Yet, somehow, the earth and we with it, still stands.
July 19, 2014: That's the Vegas over-under line (before/after) on the last appearance of Wade's byline in the NYT. The Ana Marie Coxes of journalism and the race-industrial complex will start their jihad against him any day now.
Good God, people, show some appreciation for the courage Wade is showing here. He had a very nice sinecure indeed at The Times, and chose instead to write of the most disagreeable truths in all our culture.
There's nothing "disagreeable" about these truths in our culture. Don't support their framework of lies.
In an era when the sun has essentially quit making sunspots, global temperatures are plummeting, and we are in perilous danger of being cast into at least a mini-Ice Age [and God forbid that it's a full-blown Ice Age], anyone who still pretends to believe in "ManBearPig" should be locked up in an asylum where they can be administered a healthy dose of Thorazine every evening.
Why is it that cultural/religious/scientific "conversations" don't "begin" until the New York Times notices them?
It's the same reason that the New World wasn't discovered until Columbus got here and Lynyrd Skynyrd wasn't discovered until Al Kooper saw them: something is discovered when it is plugged in to the Jewish community's neural network.
“Wade believes deeply in the fundamental equality of all human peoples.” So “peoples” are not identical genetically (nor in many other respects--numerically, geographically, physiologically, behaviorally, etc.), but they are identical “fundamentally.” As one of the “Anonymouses” asks, what does that even mean? (But, as another “Anonymous” remarks, at least it’s “deep(ly)”!)
“Wade believes deeply in the fundamental equality of all human peoples.” So “peoples” are not identical genetically (nor in many other respects--numerically, geographically, physiologically, behaviorally, etc.), but they are identical “fundamentally.” As one of the “Anonymouses” asks, what does that even mean? (But, as another “Anonymous” remarks, at least it’s “deep(ly)”!)
____________________________
This is one of a few comments along the same lines.
Can we knock off the purposeful denseness here, and say that when someone who understands HBD (such as Wade) believes in "fundamental equality" (redundant or not), one likely means that one wishes to stress his belief in the dignity and worth of all humanity.
Now, can we put that to rest and concentrate on the important stuff?
Or George Will and his son.
Suppose Mr. Wade's book argues affirmatively for HBD, and the left immediately accepts it. What then? I'm far less optimistic than some of the commenters here.
The whole leftist ideology is based on hatred of Christian whites, and that's not going to disappear. I can easily see acceptance of HBD being used as a reason to increase affirmative action and as an excuse to spend even more money on underachieving groups- to give them the middle class standard of living they can't achieve on their own. I can see it being used as a reason to be even more lenient toward black crime- after all, a propensity to violence is in their genes, poor things, it would be cruel to lock them up. And if you think the dominant elite hates white Christians now, just wait until they add an (explicit, rather than implicit) ideology of racial superiority to their arsenal.
I'm reminded of the Germans putting Lenin on that train to Russia (be careful what you wish for!) My pessimism may be genetic, but I suspect it comes from decades of watching the left turn every conservative "victory" to its advantage.
>> New Yorkers are like Columbus arriving in America, meeting people who have been there thousands of years already and then announcing that he "discovered" America.
How many "Carib tribes" Days are celebrated as national holidays in Europe?
The indigenii that the Europeans ran into in the western hemisphere, didn't know that they WERE a hemisphere, much less that there was another one. Much less have writing or the wheel or domesticated livestock.
The whole leftist ideology is based on hatred of Christian whites, and that's not going to disappear. I can easily see acceptance of HBD being used as a reason to increase affirmative action and as an excuse to spend even more money on underachieving groups- to give them the middle class standard of living they can't achieve on their own. I can see it being used as a reason to be even more lenient toward black crime- after all, a propensity to violence is in their genes, poor things, it would be cruel to lock them up. And if you think the dominant elite hates white Christians now, just wait until they add an (explicit, rather than implicit) ideology of racial superiority to their arsenal.
_____________________________
I turned 65 a few months ago. MY blue collar CA town, lined with factories along the San Joaquin River Delta, gave jobs to a few who were bright and didn't want to tax themselves, to many tradesmen, and to thousands of those who had no trade but worked for pay that surpassed not a few of the white collared workers in town. Rich benefits, overtime, two weeks off to begin, several weeks off after 10 years service, nice retirement package, whites and a lot of blacks....all gone.
IN THAT American the middle and the left of the Bell Curve could make a living.
What now?
Surely not the importation and giving of citizenship to millions of IQ 87s.
"Remember, the New York Times gave a positive review to Hernstein and Murray's The Bell Curve and JP Rushton's Race, Evolution and Behavior (same review, reviewed together along with another book on intelligence)."
Who was the reviewer? Is the review online somewhere?
For example, some of the strongest known volcanoes from the earth's history (including our history) have each kicked out more carbon emissions into the atmosphere than the whole of humanity across all of human history.
Sorry, but this simply isn't correct. Ice core measurements of CO2 levels don't show significant upticks related to massive volcanic eruptions. Human-related emissions are mainly responsible for raised levels of CO2. I just don't think such increases are a)preventable and b)anything to worry about.
Firkin:
"Sorry, but this simply isn't correct. Ice core measurements of CO2 levels don't show significant upticks related to massive volcanic eruptions. Human-related emissions are mainly responsible for raised levels of CO2."
I doubt the latter very much.
(1) On the data from the early 19th century, atmospheric C02 levels were increasing faster than human industry was outputting C02, ie if the data is correct it's impossible for the C02 to have all come from human industry.
(2) The atmospheric C02 readings keep increasing smoothly, whereas human industrial C02 output does not. Eg the industrialisation of China caused a jump in C02 output that is not reflected in atmospheric C02 concentrations.
The alternative and more likely explanation is that human activity has little effect on atmospheric C02 concentrations. Which is unsurprising since human activity is a small proportion of all Earth's C02 output.
FirkinRidiculous wrote:
"Sorry, but this simply isn't correct. Ice core measurements of CO2 levels don't show significant upticks related to massive volcanic eruptions. Human-related emissions are mainly responsible for raised levels of CO2. I just don't think such increases are a)preventable and b)anything to worry about."
This isn't strictly true. Certainly in our recorded history it is, (not sure about the last supervolcano in Yellowstone, which did happen in human prehistory at least).
But if you google the Siberian traps it has happened at least once. That was a truly mammoth geological event, not sure how many lesser ones have occurred over time that dwarf our current emission total, but I believe they are there.
But arguing climate change on this site is like presenting HBD arguments to the faculty at an elite northeastern college. The science is on your side, it fits the facts better.
But they just don't want to believe.
So this site is useful for learning about certain things. But it is tits on a man for other things.
I'd just let it rest and ignore people here when they post things like that.
anon 1:34:
The Caribs may not have had those things, but the Inca and Azteks had writing and some pretty advanced cultures. Neither their military abilities nor their immune systems were up the the challenge the Spanish brought, but they weren't bare asses savages, either. I gather some North American Indians had rather advanced cultures, too, though not as impressive as the South and Centeal American ones.
Are you thee Charles Murray of The Bell Curve? An honor to read you on the blog.
http://thedailybanter.com/2013/11/the-pernicious-sexism-and-racism-of-gravity/
Roftl. Prank review.
"Since he clearly believes that people aren't equal -- either individually or in mass ethnic and racial groups, why does he believe "deeply in the fundamental equality of all human peoples."?"
Equality before the law.
It's not complicated.
One of the things wrong with the blank slate nonsense and its consequences is people aren't equal before the law if it contradicts PC.
Is there any group or person who regularly measures the political pulse of the web? I see that the neo-Nazi skinhead sites are still in business and the Huffington Post is still a giant blog. Anyone could point to either of these to help make any point whatsoever. But is there any authoritative and trustworthy information available?
I'm really not sure about that. But to ironically quote Robert Zimmerman aka Dylan, "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows". It is now routine to read ideas expressed in comments on MSM sites such as the Daily Mail that were revolutionary even 7 years ago or so, probably less. e.g.
- European peoples as "indigenous" or "native" in their home countries, and therefore having a greater right to their countries as a result.
- That immigration should be halted.
- That illegal immigrants should be deported.
- That no one should receive benefits until they have paid at least equal into the system as they would receive.
- That the white vote is something to court, that we should not and need not fawn incessently over what the ethnic demographic want, especially when the fraction of them who can be persuaded amounts to "three fifths of f***-all" to use the Australian expression.
- That blacks have approximately 10x the rate of violent crime.
- That the Frankfurt school and Cultural Marxists are responsible for a lot of the mess we are in right now.
And what's more, hardly anyone even bothers to argue with them. It used to be that expressing many of these sorts of ideas would get one called racistKKKnaziwanttokill6millionjews yada yada yada but now they don't even seem to put up much of a fight. It's a beautiful thing to watch.
The leftist set has doubled down in its own way, on sites like Hufpo and the Guardian where if you want to partake in a highly moderated leftist echo chamber, you can. And periodically there are two minutes hate episodes such as this recent PR exec AIDS trumped up fiasco, where the MSM tries to assert its dominance again. However, it is undeniable that the left no longer has a strangehold on the boundaries of the discourse.
Is this white males making their presence felt? Largely yes. Typing pools have long been obviated by the PC, and pretty much all intelligent white males can now type. The internet allows us to express our views. Where formerly we could read the paper and silently fume as we read what some lowly paid sycophant wrote to please her editor, now we can jot off something in a few minutes to have our say. And these days, many people with half a brain know to expect more wisdom to be found within the comments than within the main article.
The other thing is that because moderation duty would have to be performed by journalists or their apprentices, having to read some of these comments must be having a persuasive impact on a lot of these moderators. Some journalists must actually google things, and now they must know that many of the things that were moderated out of existence in the early days were true if politically incorrect. So there is a quiet revolution happening here from within.
Are you thee Charles Murray of The Bell Curve?
Dear Anonymous, I think you meant "Art thou Charles Murray…"
I thought that this was a joke review of a book that Wade could be writing, but won't.
"The leftist set has doubled down in its own way, on sites like Hufpo and the Guardian where if you want to partake in a highly moderated leftist echo chamber, you can. And periodically there are two minutes hate episodes such as this recent PR exec AIDS trumped up fiasco, where the MSM tries to assert its dominance again. However, it is undeniable that the left no longer has a strangehold on the boundaries of the discourse."
These things really display how desperate and ridiculous they are- a random person named Zac_R tweeting in real time about meeting Sacco at the airport and talking to her dad is taken as factual reporting by major news outlets.
My guess is they jumped on this thing so much to take away their backfiring of their attack on Phil Robinson- they wanted the focus back on showing the public what is "supposed' to happen to someone who dares defy the narrative.
""Sorry, but this simply isn't correct. Ice core measurements of CO2 levels don't show significant upticks related to massive volcanic eruptions. Human-related emissions are mainly responsible for raised levels of CO2. I just don't think such increases are a)preventable and b)anything to worry about."
This isn't strictly true. Certainly in our recorded history it is, (not sure about the last supervolcano in Yellowstone, which did happen in human prehistory at least).
But if you google the Siberian traps it has happened at least once. That was a truly mammoth geological event, not sure how many lesser ones have occurred over time that dwarf our current emission total, but I believe they are there.
But arguing climate change on this site is like presenting HBD arguments to the faculty at an elite northeastern college. The science is on your side, it fits the facts better.
But they just don't want to believe.
So this site is useful for learning about certain things. But it is tits on a man for other things.
I'd just let it rest and ignore people here when they post things like that."
You just showed his claim wasn't true then you still believe in it?
Anyway, I'd hardly call it settled science when its been demonstrated that the researchers involved have been doctoring the 'facts' left and right- at that point why take any claims at face value? and the faithful have had to change the focus again and again as the facts got in the way "Global cooling!" no wait, "Global warming!" No wait,"Climate Change!" Yeah that's the ticket- now any time we have an usually hot or cold day we can claim,"we told you so".
Lol
Post a Comment