If a scientist says it then it must be right, like humans causing global warming...?

Question

right, libs? If so, then how about this from a Nobel Laureate:

DNA Discoverer: Blacks Less Intelligent Than Whites
Thursday, October 18, 2007

By Paul Wagenseil

AP


DNA co-discoverer and Nobel Prize winner James D. Watson in June 2007.
One of the world's most eminent scientists has created a racial firestorm in Britain.

James D. Watson, 79, co-discoverer of the DNA helix and winner of the 1962 Nobel Prize in medicine, told the Sunday Times of London that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really."

He recognized that the prevailing belief was that all human groups are equal, but that "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,302836,00.html

NOTE:

I am in no way endorsing the above statements of Dr. Watson.

Answer 1

I thought, The Bell Curve, established that long ago.

Answer 2

No--one scientists opinion can easily be wrong.

That is the point of the whole concept of "scientific consensus." There was dispute (legitimate) among scientists 20 years ago about many aspects of global warming--and some of their positions then turned out to be wrong. When their is a new area of inquiry, that is how it's supposed to be.

BUT--over time as scientists accumulate and analyze more and more data, perform and replicate more and more tests, the correct ideas get identified. Eventually you reach a poiint where there is enough evidence to establish the facts beyond dispute. and that's the case with global warming: it is NOT based on opinion, but on a weight of evidence that proves the model of man-made global warming is correct. I repeat: evidence, not opinion.

Dr. Watson --whatever his motives--is speaking as an individual. And, BTW, offers no sound evidence to support his claim.

Hopefully you see the difference. But here's another example--a personal one:

As aa social scientist, I have my own opinions about various issues. One is that a large number of the children now in "special education" are entirely capable of handling normal classes and have been wrongly labeled and shortchanged by our educational system. Now, is the fact that I am a socialscientist enough to ensure what I say is correct? NOT FOR A MINUTE. All it means--since I do have expertise inthe area--is that I am qualified to do the kind of research that can lead to verifying what amounts to a hypothesis--or falsify it , for that matter. Along with a lot of other researchers.

Now--that's not an off-the -cuff opinion--I have very good reasons for stating it (as a hypothesis, it is NOT proven)--and some of my collegues would disagree. Its a complex question--and even assumng I'm eventually proved right, some of the details will no doubt have to yield to contrrary evidence.

But--10-15 years from now, when (I hope) enough good research has been done--we will know if that hypothesis is correct or not--we will reach a point where the evidence is so convincing that virtually everyone in the field will concur. That's a scientific consensus. And that is the situation in the climatology research--the scientific consensushas been achieved because the evidence for man-made global warming is now overwhelming, not because it's somebody's opinion.

Answer 3

being involved in many environmental programs, and having a scientific backgorund. I actually agree with oyu on something.

humans ARE NOT responsible for global warming. The fear mongoroing on environmental issues is lame. Just like Bush.


but the point is global warming is indeed happening. We are at the end of the current ice age. The milonchicich Cycles (spelling?) are bringing the earth yet again closer to the sun for a heat period.

To the left it is a religion to say it is all our fault. The funny thing is the reality is there is NO sollution. no god, magic, or human intervention. Yes it is.. it is hopeless. But tht's the way the cosmos works.

If you live on the coast too bad. If you live elsewahere expect much more rain due to the increased glacial melt- aside from the oceans the water has to go somewhere- into the atmosphere. Also expect, contrary to popular bleief, colder winters. more precipitation, etc.

But expect hotter onger summers. As the sumer period will lengthen while the earth is closer to the sun.

too bad really. But the ice age is abruptly ending. think of a roast- it take sa long time, a lot of energy. Then near the end the cooking becomes rapid as the energy has reached a certain point. the last period of time is faster and more noticable compeared to the first 2 hours or so of the roast.

humans are not respnsible. And no one wants to tell the turht that there is nothing we can do. too scary. but it's true.

Answer 4

"The ice age existed. anybody has an identical opinion on that. The ice age ended. no person has asked the way it ended... if only at some point POOF each and everything grew to become into heat? Or, did a gentle warming reason the ice age to end? human beings might desire to no longer have brought about the top of the ice age." yet all of us be attentive to what did, Keith P is going over what exceeded off the way a skeptic could (an truly skeptic, no longer a claimed skeptic that only denies the reality of worldwide warming). in case you probably did no longer comprehend that the common reason is that all of us be attentive to while each and every of the organic cycles happen and it only so occurs that we aren't in a warming cycle (and there hasn't been any correlation with photograph voltaic pastime for a whilst the two) "What genuine data is there that human beings are inflicting worldwide warming? Freon is heavier than air, so it sinks and not in any respect reaches the ozone." different than for there in basic terms be a tangential relation between the hollow in the ozone layer and worldwide warming the CFCs do very plenty attain the stratosphere because of the fact the stratosphere is in the heterosphere the place the atmospheric gases are properly mixed by skill of atmospheric turbulence (and it relatively is adequate to get issues far heavier than CFCs as much as the turbopause). yet think of what you're asserting, CFCs are heavier then air, so is carbon dioxide so which you will anticipate CO2 to sink and style a layer of CO2 on the exterior upon it is the layer of molecular oxygen and then the layer of nitrogen and then the layer of atomic oxygen. it truly is only no longer how the ambience is decrease than a hundred km.

Answer 5

I am not a liberal. I am skeptical of scientists, politicians, and preachers. I find that they are all pushing an agenda.

Carbon offsets are BS feelgood measures.

Having said that, do you think it is a bad idea to treat our planet with respect? Even if there is no man made global warming, does that mean we are free to rape and pillage the planet on which we must reside? What is your point in railing against global warming?

Why don't we conservatives try to solve the problem of pollution the proper way-with free market initiatives and innovation. Then we could take this issue away from the left and people would realize that there is a reason we are conservative. If you keep trying to say that I am a conservative so I can drive a big SHV (suburban housewife vehicle) and pollute the planet because that is my right, where does that get you? Isn't conservatism about personal responsibility as much as it is about freedom? Or is it just OTHER people's personal responsibility that you are concerned about?

Answer 6

Most scientist don't think Global Warming is man made only that man is a catalyst for Global Warming. Current scientific standard States that it is a natural occurring cycle.

Yes lots of studies have shown that the average IQ rating for Blacks, high 80's, is lower than that for whites 100 and even lower than that for orientals, around 110. This doesn't mean that they have less ability to learn or even that they are more stupid. On the other hand Black develop physically faster than whites and the slowest are Orientals.

Answer 7

Its a culture that has been based in fear for a long time, this happens to people that live in fear. The poor staying poor. Racist people teaching it to their children. Im just saying that might be why, if true.

My boyfriends old boss said the same thing though, he was from south africa and he said that they wouldnt learn. They believed that people telling them to use birth control and condoms was an attempt to exterminate their race.

Its not true for all, and its reverse is probably pretty even comparing the majority of whites in America I see idiot whites everywhere I go, not just them but every race has its lesser species. The category he falls into is very small itself.

Answer 8

Wow, get over it. Not even Al made such a huge deal about the prize but trying to link the comments of a white conservative to the liberals just because he won the Nobel prize is ridiculous.

Answer 9

I think that if ALL scientists believe a theory because ALL evidence points to that theory being correct and there is no competing theory which is backed up by the evidence then a prudent man would tend to believe the scientists. Especially when ALL of the nay sayers are politically motivated hacks.

Why would you prefer to trust a politician over a scientist?

Answer 10

Other facts that science has established....

It is possible to convert lead to gold.

The Earth is flat.

No physical object can travel faster than the speed of sound.

No human being can run a mile in under four minutes.

Answer 11

One (1) Scientist ?

The Majority of Scientist around the world share many common beliefs about global warming.

And who do you cons get your information from ?
Conservative Politicians ? Big Business ?