Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives

I would state that a liberal is far more likely to believe an experts while conservatives, with no more knowledge than the liberal, are far more likely to not believe the experts. The problem for the conservative is that the experts really do know what they're talking about.

When the entire scientific community is documenting the evidence of AGW only a fool would not believe them.

 

Good point...… I personally take climate change very seriously.

I question the value of a carbon tax as the best opening gambit against a general global warming trend and tend to favor heavy investment in solar desalination of ocean water for agriculture and reforestation, which is being advocated by some experts, but not as many as I had hoped, because one part of choosing a wise response to climate change, is figuring out if it can be MARKETED to conservatives?????

Here is something of an IQ test for any interested people in this discussion..........

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=395573&page=6&p=1065303031#post1065303031
Quantum time the future affects the past

Herkdriver"

For the theologically inclined........ the various types of evidence for non-linear time imply that Ezekiel chapter 37 is NOT merely a one time event but instead can happen again and again and again....... I assume as we are guided closer and closer to some variation on Eventual Universal Salvation.....(which is perhaps the most "liberal" of all theories on the state of the dead)?!

 

On July 29 I decided to begin a discussion directed to Pope Francis himself but I assume that ordinary Catholics will read this discussion first........ and if they like it, which I do hope and believe that most will, then they may recommend this discussion to their favorite Priest, Sister or Bishop.

Post #4 here is a shocking quotation from AboveAlpha regarding the implications of climate change........... I really do feel that deeply religious people need to become more aware of how serious this question really is.......

http://www.politicalforum.com/humor...ut-we-assist-jews-get-rabbi-nachman-back.html

Dear Pope Francis...... how about we assist the Jews to get Rabbi Nachman back?



No kidding Sir!

 

I thought that your comment was exceptional......… I actually gave you Rep for it..... but I disagree with the conclusion in your name, "godisnotreal" because my limited understanding of String Theory sure seems to indicate that the first intelligence would begin and evolve in fundamental or nearly fundamental energy.......... www.CarbonBias.blogspot.ca/

On the other hand......… as our friend AboveAlpha has stated...… if there is a Supreme Intelligence in the multiverse somewhere.......... that supreme intelligence would be very different from the creator presented by most fundamentalist Christians, most fundamentalist Jews or most fundamentalist Muslims????!

I am 90% certain that you would be impressed by what was shown to near death experiencer Mellen Benedict on the Creator's approach to religion.
http://www.near-death.com/reincarnation/experiences/mellen-thomas-benedict.html#a09

 

Atmospheric pollution is just one contributing factor to AGW. Deforestation is an equal contributor so simply addressing a reduction in atmospheric pollution doesn't resolve the problem.

Additionally AGW is not the only problem with atmospheric pollution. Acid rain that destroys our lacks, rivers, streams and forests is also a by-product of burning coal. Currently about 50,000 lakes have an unnaturally acidic ph levels and hundreds are completely "dead" because the ph is so acidic that life cannot exist in them.

Atmospheric CO2 pollution, where burning of coal is the greatest single contributor, is also being absorbed by our oceans resulting in acidification that's contributing to a man-made mass extinction of species. Every seven minutes, according to what I've heard, another species becomes extinct. Based upon some studies the rate of our current mass extinction is 144-times faster than any of the previous five "natural" mass extinctions that the Earth has experienced.

The carbon tax is really a silly proposition from both an environmental and financal standpoint. First and foremost it really doesn't result in less pollution. It generates a "cost" but that cost is simply passed on to the consumer and it actually increases the profits for those that produce the pollution without them having to do anything but pass the cost on to the consumers.

Far better is to not allow any pollution that can be prevented. For example the coal industry mouthpiece, CleanCoal.org, has been saying for years that the technology exists that can economically reduce the atmospheric pollution from coal fired powerplants by up to 40%. To date I don't believe one existing coal fired powerplant has ever been retrofitted to emply this technology. Simply require the coal industry to use the technology, which effectively reduced unnecessary pollution, and don't impose a tax that they simply pass on to the consumer without reducing actual emissions.

This thread is about intelligence and we can see a lack of intelligence when it comes to conservatives and their beliefs about the environment. For some strange reason they believe that people have a "Right to Pollute" and a "Right to Destroy Nature" for personal gain but neither of those Rights exist. When we address pollution and the destruction of nature some has always been required but it should only be allowed based upon very compelling arguments and often those arguments don't exist. We mentioned coal and when the coal industry claims that the technology exists where up to 40% of the pollution can be economically eliminated and they certainly don't have a compelling argument for continuing the pollution. Rationalizations yes, compelling arguments no.

Instead of placing the burden on those that oppose pollution and environmental destruction we need to place the burden on those creating the pollution and environmental destruction to justify it by compelling argument. Rarely are they able to provide a compelling argument and certainly never to the level of pollution and environmental destruction they're causing.

 

There are rational arguments for why man would create "God" but there are no rational arguments for why "God" would have any interest in man.

 

I can think of one pretty good one...........

The Cyclic Model of the Universe/ Multiverse........ and the probable implications .....IF....... intelligence began in fundamental and/or nearly fundamental energy????!

"I THINK therefore I AM?????!"

http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...most-emotional-being-universe-multiverse.html


Could God the Father be the most emotional being in the universe/ multiverse?



Which type of project will you tend to get more involve in?

A job that you invested fifty hours of your time in over one month or a labour of love where you exerted a great deal of effort for 50,000 hours over forty years?

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/reincarnation04.html#a05

 

Dude!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What you just wrote is up there with some of the astonishing comments on AGW by AboveAlpha!

May I quote you in full into several other discussions that I have gotten going on this topic?

Wow!!!!!! I am seriously impressed!!!

 

I take climate change seriously....it changes every year..... Winter, summer,spring, and fall!....Guess what, it does it since before any of us was born...Gays like climate change, it helps their libido....Straights like it because it starts the rut!.....You know,impregnating females like a male is supposed to do, not ride the "Hershey" highway.....

 

That's self-serving nonsense. As a lay scientist I have a minimal understanding of the physics of global warming and have my doubts. But for starters the premise is simplistic and faulty. What has not been proven and what I doubt is whether man's CO2 emissions are causing the degree of deleterious effects as described and claimed by many climate scientists and others. The basic rudimentary physics of atmospheric warming is not up for question -- though very few can describe even how that works.

 

You mean like the liberal obsession with race? Must be how you appeal to smart people.

 

Like I said, no logical arguments.

 

It's a public post so of course it can be cited in public discussions but I'm not the expert. The scientists are the experts and it's far better to read and know the science than to refer to me as some kind of expert. I merely pass the scientific message along along with a few of my own conclusions.

The problem is for those that don't take the time to try and understand the science and draw the lines between the dots. Nothing is worse than being a science denier because that's opinion not just based upon ignorance but instead it's based upon a rejection of knowledge. It's one thing to simply not know something and a competely different thing to not know something and insist on disagreeing with the experts that do know.

 

"Liberals" thoughout the history of the United States have fought a battle against the invidious ideology of WASP Male Supremacy that's a cornerstone of social conservatism in America. The war against WASP Male Supremacy in the United States is a war based upon the Rights of ALL People and the battles must be fought. This war against WASP Male Supremacy if based upon the founding ideology of America where "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain (in)alienable rights" and it must be fought if we're ever going to ever live and breath in the "land of the free."

It was never the liberal that created racsim. It was the social conservative that brought racism to America.

 

Thanks for proving my point. All men are created equal, unless they are WASPs.

 

Excellent, thank you..... the first discussion I quote you into is....... (post #29)......

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=394887&page=3&p=1065305305#post1065305305
Ignorance shown in my 2008 campaign, my apology to Ms. Elizabeth May!

 

You mean a liberal is more likely to take the word of authority instead of actually delving into the science. All one needs is to believe in 'experts' as infallible.

The fallacy of 'the entire scientific community' just shows how little is known about the science, the process, the politics, and human nature.

 

I know for a fact that Liberals are smarter....look at the "wart" that was elected in 2008 and reelected in 12....

 

Hoosier8, now that we have discussed this alternative theory on climate change several times, is the Carl Cantrell alternative theory on how to combat AGW growing on you?

http://www.politicalforum.com/opini...saving-new-orleans-florida-rising-oceans.html
The Sahara Forest Project...and saving New Orleans and Florida from rising oceans!

"Every cubic meter of H2O added to the water table of nations in the Middle EAst will NOT be on top of New Orleans, Florida, Holland, Bangladesh or those 143,000 acres along the Fundy!!!!!"
.....https://www.facebook.com/SaharaForestProject

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=300460&page=5&p=1065307107#post1065307107
.....

 

The basis of Ben Carson's so-called 'gifted hands' is the separation of two sets of Siamese twins--the Block twins and the Binder twins. The Binder twins are institutionalized with one being in a vegetative state; and one of the Block twins died on the operating table. The surviving twin has severe neurological damage.

I would hardly call the hands 'gifted' that left three babies neurologically damaged and left one dead. And, if wasn't for the 100 member surgical team that 'assisted' Carson, the outcomes would have been much worse--if that is possible. Of course the alternative to surgical separation is death usually by the age of two. I would take two semi-normal years of life in the company of the my parents, then living in a institution in a vegetative state for the rest of my life. AA

 

Thank you for that update. Interesting!!!

 

1. If you poll the national academy of sciences, about 95% of them are atheists. I think they understand string theory better than you.
2. NDE's have been shown to be the brain's reaction to an anoxic environment. Many of them are very similar - an out of body experience, a light, and then returning to the body. This is a biological phenomenon, not evidence of god. sorry. I like to base all my conclusions on evidence. It can be found here:
http://www.skepdic.com/nde.html

 

You hint at the problem. Believing an authoritative source (singular) is a mistake while believing authoritative sources (plural) is not. For example AGW deniers often point to the fact that atmospheric temperatures were not rising for about 15 years and they're citing a single source of heat absorption by the planet. Intelligent people looked at all the sources for measuring increased global temperatures (multiple sources) where scientists documented increased ocean temperatures. While the air wasn't getting warmer the water was and the water holds a lot more heat energy than the air.

Some seem to believe that the scientific theory of AGW is relatively recent but it's not. It was first proposed about 150 years ago and has been under-going constant scientific study and verification since then. In 150 years every scientific measurement has confirmed the theory of manmade global warming. During that 150 years not a single comprehensive study has disputed manmade global warming and there are no theories that contradict the theory of manmade global warming. There just aren't enough natural sources to provide for the documented increases in global temperatures over the last 150 years. It's very much like the theory of evolution where there are no scientific theories that dispute evolution.

So the problem is when people look at a single study as opposed to all studies and liberals are far more likely to address the entire body of scientific evidence when compared to conservatives. This is true when we look at global warming, racism, economics, and virtually every other issue of concern.

Conservatives tend to reflect "simple-minded" thinking as opposed to "complex analysis" of a problem.

 

No statistically significant warming for 18+ years according to the best records, the two separate satellite records. Even the NOAA surface land ocean record was showing no warming until they latched onto the (single paper) Karl et al paper that took the buoy temperatures designed for climate recordings and adjusted them up to match the ship engine intake temperatures which were never designed for climate and have no continuity in design.

Thanks for proving my point. Liberals tend to listen to authority instead of delving into the complex issue of climate change.

 

One of the general difficulties of the warmist theory is the initial indications of a study or a multitude of studies leapfrog to an exaggerated conclusion that gets its own built-in bias and belief. Science is not a democratic process. A large majority of scientists can collectively believe and conclude things are correct, or they might be in error. You rest your opinion on a large majority vote that can happen with a number of independent unbiased studies coming together, or might be due to, among other things, the two laws: the herd of independent minds and the law of expected results. One of those other things is that they might be independently wrong.

Even if in the minority one should not simply dismiss the significant number of respected climate scientists that have contrary conclusions with a derisive wave of the hand (though that is exactly what is going on.)

You correctly say global warming has been in the sciences for 150 years but with gross exaggeration and error you say it has been the consensus all that time. The works of Fourier, Pouillet, Tyndall, Arrhenius (considered the first father -- 1896), Callendar, ands until Plass in 1956 were in a small minority and considered wrong if not oddball. The consensus you so admire was for a hundred years that CO2 had little to no effect on climate. Simpson, the pre-eminent meteorologist the first half of the 20th century summed up a 1929 paper with, “Terrestrial radiation is not affected by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.”