More Childless Men: Women Do Not Want Children With Low-status Men

[JeanLucBB]

Incorrect.

Temperatures have risen ~0.6 degrees since 1940, which is comparable to the increase in the prior 2000 years.

What you;'re doing is seeing the 0.6 degree shift twice and thinking that the rate of increase is the same, but you're neglecting to realize that one change is over 2000 years and the other is over 80 years. To get the rate of temperature increase, you have to divide by a time baseline.

Nice strawman and misrepresentation of the facts but no.


http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/Loehle_McC_E&E_2008.pdf

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Would you kindly get fucked and cut the disingenuous BS.

"The global financial markets rely on the US dollar as a reserve currency, which is itself backed by petroleum."

Again you have zero understanding of what you're talking about and are quoting conspiracy theorists. You're talking to someone with a finance agree trying to act as if you are in on some magical understanding of fiat currency that doesn't exist in the real world.It is f*****g embarrassing.


"
Allocation of subsidies in the United States[edit]
On March 13, 2013, Terry M. Dinan, senior advisor at the Congressional Budget Office, testified before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in the U.S. House of Representatives that federal energy tax subsidies would cost $16.4 billion that fiscal year, broken down as follows:

1. Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)
2. Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)
3. Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)
4. Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)

In addition, Dinan testified that the U.S. Department of Energy would spend an additional $3.4 billion on financial Support for energy technologies and energy efficiency, broken down as follows:

1. Energy efficiency and renewable energy: $1.7 billion (51 percent)
2. Nuclear energy: $0.7 billion (22 percent)
3. Fossil energy research & development: $0.5 billion (15 percent)
4. Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy: $0.3 billion (8 percent)
5. Electricity delivery and energy reliability: $0.1 billion (4 percent)[29"

You're quoting some cute micro-subsidies, but the big picture is that of a petroleum-based economy.

I don't know if you're aware, but the cost of the Iraq war exceeds 3 trillion.

 

[JeanLucBB]

You're quoting some cute micro-subsidies, but the big picture is that of a petroleum-based economy.

I don't know if you're aware, but the cost of the Iraq war exceeds 3 trillion.

More conspiracy theories backed by no legitimate evidence. To act as if that was a 3 trillion dollar war over oil or compare it to an oil subsidy is ludicrously insane.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Nice strawman and misrepresentation of the facts but no.


http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/Loehle_McC_E&E_2008.pdf

View attachment 71375

Energy & Environment is a low-impact crackpot journal pushing an agenda.

If you have any arguments from credible and rigorous thinkers -- let me know.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

More conspiracy theories backed by no legitimate evidence. To act as if that was a 3 trillion dollar war over oil or compare it to an oil subsidy is ludicrously insane.

Middle eastern policy is largely driven by oil and has been for approximately a century.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

And you get to decide which thinkers get to be seen as rigorous or not?

As far as I'm concerned, the radical left is pushing an environmentalist agenda to gain power and influence.

It's widely acknowledged that E&E is a crackpot publication.

Their studies don't get cited, have a lot of errors, they apparently promote rejects like Sally Baliunas, and their editor openly admits that his priority is to push a right-wing agenda.

I'm willing to listen to counterarguments -- from rigorous thinkers.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Sorry, I can't listen to a video, I'm getting on a train.

 

[JeanLucBB]

Renewables are already a cheaper source of power than fossil fuels in many areas of the world. That wasn't the case a decade ago, but the marginal cost for solar and wind has fallen dramatically over a very short span of time, helped along by government subsidies. We can gradually reduce the level of subsidies over time, and the value of the reduced negative externalities makes up for whatever explicit economic benefits we are giving up in the short term, in terms of higher taxation or energy costs.

Issues can be serious without people acknowledging them. Are you saying that's not the case? I'd love to see you argue that. That notwithstanding, a lot of people seem to be voting with their dollars in terms of doing things like purchasing electric vehicles.

In parts of the world that have banned coal without carbon capture or low emissions technology that drastically raises the price, and in which carbon credits and taxes play a role. Of course if through legislation you make coal powered energy more expensive than renewables, it will be more expensive than renewables. Solar and wind cannot be used as baseload without battery storeage which is the real issue that no one is willing to acknolwedge. No country in the world can run off renewables. Nuclear to drastically cut emissions in the future along with electric vehicles appears a solution, but most on the left are anti-nuclear. Why? Because it's more about attacking capitalist ideals of production, growth and prosperity than it is about cutting emissions or any environmental cause. It's about a hate for Western civilisation and technological progress and a desire to raize it to the ground.

Electric car useage in the population is around half a %. The average family is using more power than they were a decade ago, particularly in China this number has drastically increased. If people don't spend or behave in a way that acknowledges an issue or suggests they take it seriously, you cannot argue that they care deeply about it. It is an impossibility. Families on average have increased their emissions in the Western world over the past decade, it is therefore a fact they care less about emissions and more about the benefit that that energy useage provides. End of story.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Here are some 20th century temperature records from non-crackpots:

 

[JeanLucBB]

JeanLuc, what are your views on human biodiversity?

The facts on that issue aren't interested in your emotions or the emotions of any other socialist or SJW in that regard. That's all I'll say.

From Richard Lynn

"His conclusions are that the East Asians (Chinese, Japanese and Koreans) have the highest mean IQ at 105. These are followed by the Europeans (IQ 100). Some way below these are the Inuit (Eskimos) (IQ 91), South East Asians (IQ 87), Native American Indians (IQ 87), Pacific Islanders (IQ 85), South Asians and North Africans (IQ 84). Well below these come the sub-Saharan Africans (IQ 67) followed by the Australian Aborigines (IQ 62). The least intelligent races are the Bushmen of the Kalahari desert together with the Pygmies of the Congo rain forests (IQ 54)."


U triggered yet bro?

 

[JeanLucBB]

The part about attacking capitalist ideals is pure conjecture on your part, impossible to argue seriously against, and I'm guessing you deep down acknowledge that as well. There are scattered pockets of the environmental movement who hold to an idealized notion of pre-modern society, but they are not by any stretch a majority and not in themselves a reason to argue against fighting something as serious as climate change.

Storage I find to be mostly a non-issue. Things like inter-continental transmission lines are popping up all over Northern Europe, and battery and storage technology have advanced quite rapidly in later years.

Electric car usage is still minor but current projections are extremely bullish and it's driven mostly by consumer choice too. The per-capita usage is to a major degree a function of things that households cannot directly influence, like power generation. The closing-down of nuclear power plants is a negative contributor in this respect, and I agree; this has always seemed a contradiction to me. We won't be seeing nuclear power plants opening soon though, they have ridiculous lead times and the technology to build them has almost vanished.

Anyway, an issue can be deeply serious without being acknowledged by anyone. Whether or not people find it more convenient to pay a few cents less for their power is irrelevant to me. The negative externalities of fossil fuels more than outweighs the economic benefits of continuing to use them.

Until what you're saying about the state of renewables and battery tech actually results in comparatively cheap energy globally, it is a farce. It has to be cheaper without subsidies and without regulatory influence causing new coal fired stations to produce at a more expensive rate than a coal station produced 30 years ago through crippling it with carbon capture and other carbon reduction tech.

"The negative externalities of fossil fuels more than outweighs the economic benefits of continuing to use them."

Tell that to the increasing number of Australian's who have family members die because they can no longer afford to run an air conditioner. Tell that to the collapsing manufacturing businesses hit by energy prices more than doubling in a decade due to extensive implementation of renewables. The real world doesn't reflect your claims, at least in the current moment. Battery technology to accommodate renewables for mass supply of power simply does not exist yet, the largest batteries currently can barely supply power to 100k houses for 10 minutes, let alone a city for any legitimate length of time. It isn't an option currently, what you're claiming is tooth fairy sh*t. Non-issue? No, non-EXISTENT.

"inter-continental transmission lines are popping up all over Northern Europe"

Yes importing energy from nuclear or coal plants and ticking the Paris target boxes. Well done leftists. Score another one for the f*****g team dipshits.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

This is bog standard race realist stuff. You'll have to get deep into eugenics and the white ethno-state before you're likely to elicit any reaction from me. Do you happen to have any thoughts on that?

How seriously do you take the underlying assumption that IQ is not socially constructed nor influenced?

"Pygmies of the Congo rain forests (IQ 54)."
I'm surprised they even get 54, and I'm suspicious of how reliably it's measured. But if their kids were raised in the west I'd expect them to get closer to 100 within a few generations.

We've also seen the reverse happen. Previous generations of Jews and Japanese dominated educational achievement measures in the USA for a very long time. However, after a few generations of assimilation, their performance was normalized.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

tooth fairy sh*t.

Unsurprisingly, you've provided no evidence of that claim. Just an image link to a crackpot journal.

 

[JeanLucBB]

This is bog standard race realist stuff. You'll have to get deep into eugenics and the white ethno-state before you're likely to elicit any reaction from me. Do you happen to have any thoughts on that?

I think a European or Asian ethno-state would be ideal, but I don't think it should be caused by legislation for genocide or anything like that. Certainly replacing the Aboriginals of Australia for example with Koreans would increase productivity and decrease those living on welfare, that is inarguable.

 

[JeanLucBB]

Unsurprisingly, you've provided no evidence of that claim. Just an image link to a crackpot journal.

He was the one who made the claim, I was stating that it wasn't backed by evidence. Your argument to my argument is "you've provided no evidence of that claim". Are you stupid?

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/23/16693848/elon-musk-worlds-biggest-battery-100-days

"100MWhr battery set "

"
World’s biggest battery to be ready this week in Australia"
"For example, in Texas, a solar project was said to have the capacity to power 127 homes per MW, 167, or 700."

So around 12700 homes which is negligible, and the battery would be fully uncharged within about in hour. The biggest battery in the world.

Again, apparently you and your socialist, delusional climate-cult buddies never need to justify claims, but the other side must cite EVERYTHING. Get fucked.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

He was the one who made the claim, I was stating that it wasn't backed by evidence. Your argument to my argument is "you've provided no evidence of that claim". Are you stupid?.

I'm discussing the temperature record. I've already provided references -- from real scientists, not crackpots submitting to crackpot journals.

It's also the case that global warming is simple physics which has been understood conceptually for ~1 century. It is up to you to prove the case against it as you are the one taking on the contrarian position. Within popular culture this is often referred to as "Occam's razor". Since you're making a strong claim, you need to provide strong evidence.

I have a date with power point, so take your time.

Here's the thing though: your position is incorrect, and thus you will never find any valid sources supporting your position. Temperatures are in fact increasing relatively rapidly -- even if that's inconvenient for you philosophically.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Explanation for Asians: https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

Explanation for the Jews: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence

IQ is almost 100% genetic and static.

There is some evidence that breastfeeding can add a couple of points to your kid's IQ.

Other than that nutrition and video games while growing up play a very small part.

Yeah I know, many people had a dream that with providing education for everyone, the IQ of the general population would raise up and we would see more smart people.

This has not happened. 85% of the population are still unable to go to university, 50% of the population still can't even get his high school degree (you need at least an average IQ for that).

"Hate facts" I know. It is what it is unfortunately.

And yet Jewish and Asian performance measures are known to vary based on cultural factors.

Thirty years ago, women were 13 less likely (yes, 13 times) than boys to score 700+ on the Math section of the SAT. Today, they are roughly ~2x less likely. A purely genetic indicator doesn't change from 13 to 2 in one or two generations.

Another aspect is the Flynn effect, which shows IQs shifting by 3 points per decade.

All in all, I'm inclined to trust the work of the best scientists who have worked on this issue. IQ is an imperfect measure of intelligence, denoted g, but it can be estimated that roughly half the variance in g is due to genetics.

 

[JeanLucBB]

I'm discussing the temperature record. I've already provided references -- from real scientists, not crackpots submitting to crackpot journals.

It's also the case that global warming is simple physics which has been understood conceptually for ~1 century. It is up to you to prove the case against it as you are the one taking on the contrarian position. Within popular culture this is often referred to as "Occam's razor". Since you're making a strong claim, you need to provide strong evidence.

I have a date with power point, so take your time.

Here's the thing though: your position is incorrect, and thus you will never find any valid sources supporting your position. Temperatures are in fact increasing relatively rapidly -- even if that's inconvenient for you philosophically.

" from real scientists, not crackpots submitting to crackpot journals. "

And again we get back to the problem with a major problem with the left, and it isn't a generalisation. Only those from the left may be the arbiters of truth and more often than not you hold a desire to legislate your truths into the world, rather than letting free speech, free transactions and free markets exist. It's not enough for you to simply endorse a claim and allow the free market to decide, you ask for the most subsidies in the sector, massive legislative changes such as carbon capture and low emissions fossil fuel tech to cripple their price competitiveness and everyone to endorse the same claim as yourself.

"It is up to you to prove the case against it as you are the one taking on the contrarian position. "

Take a f*****g analytic philosophy 101 course because you literally don't know what the f*** you are talking about. That is a pure bandwagon fallacy. I provided evidence and you ignore it and criticise it mentioning SPECIFICALLY that it is "right-wing". What evidence could I provide that you would accept? Nothing, because your mind is made up and you prefer the bandwagon fallacy to facts or reality. The problem with the peer review system is that you will lose your peer reviewing ability if you don't tow the party line. There is no incentive to provide accurate facts because there is a culture that is against it and more interested in virtue signalling and career prospects than questioning this. The fact that "legitimate" scientists can back an agreement like Paris under which there are no penalties, China and India will drastically increase emissions and the US will decrease them is evidence enough that this isn't about facts or objectivity, it's about moralising.

"It's also the case that global warming is simple physics which has been understood conceptually for ~1 century."

That must be why their non-open source computer modelling has been consistently incorrect over the past two decades. Must be why their temperature rate predictions from 2000-2015 and sea level + antarctic ice predictions from the same period were so completely off base despite 95% confidence intervals (which NASA admits). Because "simple physics". f*****g get real.

 

[JeanLucBB]

Subsidies are a fact of life and they, along with other government intervention in the economy, play an important role in accounting for negative externalities, like environmental pollution and climate change resuling from the use of fossil fuels. The economic effects of a rise in the sea level, increasing frequency of super-storms and the property damage resulting from those things absolutely dwarfs whatever marginal benefit we get from adhering to a free market-driven approach to energy economics.

If you take the case of Germany, the inter-continental transmission lines are reducing imbalances in the transmission system through importing clean energy from Northern Europe and through exporting wind power produced in Germany to said countries at different times of the day. Power storage is an exciting field with numerous new inventions that in aggregate will solve much of the outstanding issues that are currently hindering a transition to clean energy.

I don't know what manufacturing industry you are referring to, most seem to doing fine in terms of energy costs in Europe at least. I can't find a source for the people dying in Australia due to expensive energy, but it will largely be a moot point as Australia will be unliveable under a scenario with unchecked emissions. The deaths, if there are any and you are not making this up, are probably in the handful at most. Climate change on the other hand will likely cause the death of millions.

Easy to disregard 100% power price increasing over a decade and manufacturing industry jobs disappearing when you're from a multi-millionare family like yourself and never have to worry about expenses.

Sure it won't matter to you doubling energy prices with 10% increases year on f*****g year in 2017, but in the real world and the real economy it is a serious problem.

Everything you talk about involving "millions" of people is absurd, hasn't yet occurred and has no realistic potential of occurring in the next 100 years.

"The deaths, if there are any and you are not making this up, are probably in the handful at most. Climate change on the other hand will likely cause the death of millions.["

The stats I have seen suggest in the hundreds and it has doubled over the past five years. Again though like all good socialists you're interested in the greater good than the lives of "millions" individuals, so that is nice of you. People can't look after themselves or make rational decisions according to you, but I am sure you'll save us with your energy subsidies, carbon taxes and destroying the manufacturing industry of your country.

 

[JeanLucBB]

TBH, the causal density on this topic is immense. You have the aggregate effects of culture, politics, economics and genetics working at a massive scale across generations. That there are differences in median IQ between races is a fact. But I'm not convinced that the circumstantial evidence is so massively in favor of the genetic hypothesis that we should favor it over all other explanations. For the record I have looked quite extensively at this and also spent time reading material by avowed race realists and white supremacists for this purpose.

In my opinion, we should invest resources into finding solid biological evidence for/against race-based IQ differences. If the biological evidence bears out that the differences are due to the presence/absence of certain gene clusters or something else like that then that settles it and we can go on to think about what it implies. In the interim though, arguing for eugenics and ethnic cleansing based on inference alone seems pretty foolish.

Meet some Australia aborigines and you will quickly realize that there are some forms of human closer to monkeys than humans. I’m not trying to be inflammatory by saying that, literally the fullbloods and that far removed from other races that your opinion on biological influence on iq and intelligence can be huge. It’s not about black people either, in my experience I don’t think there is a noticeable difference in iq and achievement of the average black vs white here that has been in Australia for over a generation, but the full blood aboriginals are mostly like animals in my experience.