patrick.net

Raw says

A lot depends on the type of questions asked.
I remember, back in college reading about a question that was asked to Brazilian kids....A picture of a refrigerator was shown and they were asked which room it belongs in. Many answered bedroom, because they were living in a one room home.
IQ questions and scores are just not reliable.

Many people claim liberals are smart. I challenge a liberal to create a meaningful IQ test that its results do not show a difference in black and white IQ.

Since California banned IQ tests of black students in the 1970's, I would think that they would have started working on a non biased test then. It's taking them quite a while.

Raw says

Even chimpanzees share 99% of our genes. Fox is a troublemaker.

98.8% for Bonobos, our closest relatives. I'm a bit picky on details when it comes to evolutionary science. It's an interest of mine.

Dan8267 says

but there is only a maximum of a 0.1% difference between your genetic code and any other person on this planet

Let's make it simple.

It's easy to concede the external physical genetic differences between the races. They are as obvious as the differences between males and females. Skin color and hair color being the major genetic differences everyone will admit to. Native sub saharan africans always have dark brown skin and black hair. American blacks have lighter skin and usually black hair, depending on their mix since being rescued from Africa during the slave times. Whites have white skin and a variety of hair colors.

The harder to see genetic differences are inside your body. Brain size and neurons being the ones that deal with intelligence. It is a fact that blacks have smaller brains than every other major race on earth. If you believe in evolution as most liberals do, you have to concede that different groups of humans can have different brain sizes in order to remain logical.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx

foxmannumber1 says

I challenge a liberal to create a meaningful IQ test that its results do not show a difference in black and white IQ.

Anyone who is either liberal or smart would not attempt to design an IQ test with the goal of showing no differences between races. Doing so would invalidate the test. Now perhaps a leftist would do so, but not a liberal.

There, however, is a huge difference between the conclusion that group A performs task T better than group B and the conclusion that the individuals in group A are genetically predisposition to perform task T better than the individuals in group B. I do not get why this concept is so difficult for you to understand. I understood this principle when I was five.

I'll illustrate with a real world example. Remember the white fire fighters who were denied promotions because they as an arbitrary ethnic group performed better on written tests than their black counterparts? Well, it wasn't that whites are genetically better fire fighters. It's that all these Irish fire fighters came from families who have been doing fire fighting for generations and had a culture that promoted excellent fire fighting skills.

The same case can be made for educational differences. It is the culture, the poverty levels, drug violence, and other environmental factors that result in African Americans performing worse in academics. Furthermore, it is the culture of pressuring children to perform academically -- and there's a price to pay for that culture -- that causes Asian students to perform better than any other group academically. Parental pressure, culture, freedom from fear of gangs all play an important part in a student realizing his or her potential.

foxmannumber1 says

You will also notice that black children walk sooner than other races and also reach puberty faster than other races.

Fox, I have some bad news for you.
When two different populations come together, they first make war, and then they make love.
Your future generations are gonna carry the genes you seem so prejudiced against. I hope that knocks some sense into you.

Dan8267 says

Remember the white fire fighters who were denied promotions because they as an arbitrary ethnic group performed better on written tests than their black counterparts?

I've read that test that blacks did so poorly on. The questions were mainly about reading comprehension and not actual knowledge of firefighting. Blacks read far below their white counterparts.

The root cause of all black problems is lack of genetic intelligence. They do worse in school when compared to whites because they are unintelligent. They are unable to get high skill requirement jobs because they are unintelligent. They are poorer than whites because they are unintelligent. They are more criminal than whites because they are unintelligent.

Raw says

foxmannumber1 says

You will also notice that black children walk sooner than other races and also reach puberty faster than other races.

Fox, I have some bad news for you.

When two different populations come together, they first make war, and then they make love.

Your future generations are gonna carry the genes you seem so prejudiced against. I hope that knocks some sense into you.

I feel that even with all the media influence to promote miscegenation, whites and blacks are as segregated as ever.

foxmannumber1 says

If you believe in evolution as most liberals do, you have to concede that different groups of humans can have different brain sizes in order to remain logical.

As I've said before, variations in intelligent in human beings is most certainly partly related to variation in genetics. Where we disagree is that you assert that the genes responsible for these variation neatly correlate to racial lines, whereas I demand proof before accepting a rather strong statement.

I have meet extremely intelligent people in every races and extremely dumb ones in every race. Hell, the term race is a political one, not a biological one anyway, as there is a continuous spectrum of "racial" features like skin tone and eye slant across large regions.

But anyway, although I certainly see smart people having smart children, I have seen such smart families and conversely dumb families in all races. Why should I believe that the set of genes influencing intelligent variations are restricted to one race when I know that 99.9% of all human genes cross all racial boundaries. From a mathematical perspective, that means there is a 99.9% chance that any gene affecting strength, intelligence, musical talent, religious acceptance, etc. is likely to be a cross-racial gene.

This means that identifying a specific gene -- which you have yet to do -- as race-specific is a strong, not weak, statement.

I'm sure that musical talent and the ability to sing well are largely genetic as well. Yet there are great musicians and singers in all races. Why would I presume that intelligence is different? The burden of proof is on you, and you have offered absolutely no evidence to support your claim.

Dan8267 says

the term race is a political one, not a biological one

False.

Dan8267 says

This means that identifying a specific gene -- which you have yet to do

Sadly I am not a geneticist. I simply google for the information I want. I agree we need to map every gene. Let's get the US government to fund this.

foxmannumber1 says

Raw says

foxmannumber1 says

You will also notice that black children walk sooner than other races and also reach puberty faster than other races.

Fox, I have some bad news for you.

When two different populations come together, they first make war, and then they make love.

Your future generations are gonna carry the genes you seem so prejudiced against. I hope that knocks some sense into you.

I feel that even with all the media influence to promote miscegenation, whites and blacks are as segregated as ever.

You are in denial. Take a look at you future generations. I hope you don't hate them.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204880404577226981780914906.html

Raw says

You are in denial. Take a look at you future generations. I hope you don't hate them.

Black male/white females relationships fail at a much higher rate than any other pairing.

The number of all white enclave neighborhoods is at an all time high as well.

You appear to be rather naive about racial issues. I suggest you read some work on this site and be honest with yourself.

http://www.amren.com/

Electric and plug-in hybrids make no sense. Let's work on getting non plug-in hybrids down to a reasonable price.

foxmannumber1 says

Dan8267 says

the term race is a political one, not a biological one

False.

Then kindly provide the biological definition of race, the definition that allows me to determine a person's race simply by their DNA.

foxmannumber1 says

I simply google for the information I want.

Anyone can Google for information. The intelligent person is the one who can filter out all the crap.

foxmannumber1 says

Black male/white females relationships fail at a much higher rate than any other pairing.

If even 1% of children each generation are born to interracial parents, gene flow will ensure a homogenization of the species unless there is severe selective pressure to counter this gene flow. Such severe selection is unlikely in a world where most people reproduce.

foxmannumber1 says

Raw says

You are in denial. Take a look at you future generations. I hope you don't hate them.

Black male/white females relationships fail at a much higher rate than any other pairing.

The number of all white enclave neighborhoods is at an all time high as well.

You appear to be rather naive about racial issues. I suggest you read some work on this site and be honest with yourself.

http://www.amren.com/

A mixed couple with children can divorce all they want, but they cannot change their children. No matter what you do, you cannot fight the tide.
Scientists have estimated in a thousand or two years there will only be one race.
The reason I emphasis this is to burst your prejudiced bubble, and engrave in your mind that your future generations will carry the genes of the people you hate the most.
I can sense I have succeeded.

edvard said: But our 12 year old Prius ( first generation when they looked more like a ordinary econo-car) has held up for 175,000 miles without a issue and the batteries have held up well- and the amount of improvement in today's batteries has far surpassed whats in our car.
For some reason I didn't picture you driving a Prius... then again, you do your own maintenance. I'm assuming the hybrid comes out ahead on that front (brake service at least?) I always get put in a hybrid Escape when taking a cab home from the airport with my family. Those things seem to go forever (I believe they get retired at 300k miles)...

Dan8267 says

Then kindly provide the biological definition of race, the definition that allows me to determine a person's race simply by their DNA.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/dnaprint?currentPage=all

You're a smart person. You're able to find information without me putting it on a plate for you. Google for 'race by dna' and you'll learn a lot.
Using bone/brain size and shape can easily determine the race of a corpse.

Raw says

No matter what you do, you cannot fight the tide.

Yes you can. You can instill values and the truth about the dangers of associating with non whites. Everyone have the fundamental human right to freedom of association. Freedom of association goes against all civil rights laws in the USA though, showing you how unnatural those laws are.

The government can't force you to associate on a personal level with people you don't wish to. They do their best to force them on you in public, the workplace and government, but your personal life can never be invaded.

Here are many reasons why whites should avoid blacks.
http://jewamongyou.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/reflections-of-a-racist-father/

Raw says

Scientists have estimated in a thousand or two years there will only be one race.

Scientists have done nothing of the sort. Liberal propoganda machines under the false title of 'social scientists' may say this, but it has no factual basis in reality.

"Diversity" is the mantra of all liberals in this era. If every race on earth does end up virtually the same indistinct mix of all current races, "diversity" will cease to exist. Diversity is just a code word for 'anti-white'. Whenever diversity increases, the white population decreases. It is simply white genocide.

foxmannumber1 says

Scientists have done nothing of the sort. Liberal propoganda machines under the false title of 'social scientists' may say this, but it has no factual basis in reality.

"Diversity" is the mantra of all liberals in this era. If every race on earth does end up virtually the same indistinct mix of all current races, "diversity" will cease to exist. Diversity is just a code word for 'anti-white'. Whenever diversity increases, the white population decreases. It is simply white genocide.

You can give your children values and beliefs. You can claim who is superior or inferior, but you will never stop evolution.
This will make you turn in your grave one day.
Meet your future generation.
http://www.livescience.com/23277-will-humans-eventually-all-look-like-brazilians.html

Raw says

but you will never stop evolution.

Stephen Sterns, the liberal Yale professor making the claim that all humans will eventually look alike, has no facts to back up his claim. The fate of humans he claims to predict is not written. You saw T2 I'm sure.

It is a fact that blacks and whites rarely want to mix with each other. It is hard to find hard numbers since private thoughts differ from their public voice, but here are some from an online dating site:

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-race-affects-whether-people-write-you-back/

Another interesting question I never get a logical answer to:

If whites are so racist and blacks can never get ahead in life due to white privilege, why don't blacks segregate themselves from whites and create their own happiness?

The answer is because super majority black populations can't create or maintain civilizations. They invariably fail and need white money to stay alive.

CaptainShuddup says

I'm sorry Kerry lost the 2004 election but calling people stupid who voted against him, will do nothing help Vote in the next douche sack like Kerry other than upping the anty against his chances.

1. You're not sorry.
2. The table above lists the average IQ by states. That information is correct regardless of who the state voted for.
3. The table was quoted to demonstrate that foxmannumber1's proposed forced sterilization based on IQ would disproportionately eliminate red state reproduction.
4. You knew points 1, 2, and 3 and are trying to change the subject.

Raw says

Mile by mile an electric car will still pollute a lot less than a gasoline driven car. The percent of total electricity that comes from coal is also declining steadily as alternative fuels ramp up their volume.

Note true. I quoted Leaf versus Prius with current grid mix above. Leaf pollutes more CO2.

The grid mix in the US changes very slowly, and is mostly a matter of the relative price of coal and natgas. It fluctuates seasonally as well. Right now there is a bit of a tilt towards more natgas, but natgas prices are creeping up and we will be back to coal. The following graph shows some recent historical data:

NOW, if we were all driving and charging elexctric vehicles, we would have to more than DOUBLE electricity production. Is that going to happen anytime soon without burning a LOT more coal? No way it is! That is the point here: CO2/kWh is going to *increase* when we start adding electrical vehicles.

"Alternative fuels", apart from natgas, is a pitifully small fraction of the total.

Data graph is from http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=6550

justme,

Here's a great site with actual calculations regarding "sustainable" energy:

www.withouthotair.com

Glad to see we're getting back to the OT here...

Definitely need to increase the nuclear in that mix!

New Renter says

Definitely need to increase the nuclear in that mix!

Except that environmentalists are blocking it. Just like they block wind power.

Ironic, isn't it?

They want energy, but they don't want anyone to generate it.

I guess they believe in magic.

justme says

Raw says

Mile by mile an electric car will still pollute a lot less than a gasoline driven car. The percent of total electricity that comes from coal is also declining steadily as alternative fuels ramp up their volume.

Note true. I quoted Leaf versus Prius with current grid mix above. Leaf pollutes more CO2.

The grid mix in the US changes very slowly, and is mostly a matter of the relative price of coal and natgas. It fluctuates seasonally as well. Right now there is a bit of a tilt towards more natgas, but natgas prices are creeping up and we will be back to coal. The following graph shows some recent historical data:

I don't see anywhere that shows electric cars pollute more than gasoline driven cars.
I understand it still pollutes, because part of the mix contains coal, but gasoline is a 100% fossil fuel, and that would pollute more.

freak80 says

New Renter says

Definitely need to increase the nuclear in that mix!

Except that environmentalists are blocking it. Just like they block wind power.

Ironic, isn't it?

They want energy, but they don't want anyone to generate it.

I guess they believe in magic.

Some of them are nuts. They don't want fossil fuels, nuclear, or wind. Not much left is there?

freak80 says

New Renter says

Definitely need to increase the nuclear in that mix!

Except that environmentalists are blocking it. Just like they block wind power.

Ironic, isn't it?

They want energy, but they don't want anyone to generate it.

I guess they believe in magic.

Yes, magic in the form of solar. Preferably in the forms of invisible panels that can run on moonlight.

Raw says

I don't see anywhere that shows electric cars pollute more than gasoline driven cars.
I understand it still pollutes, because part of the mix contains coal, but gasoline is a 100% fossil fuel, and that would pollute more.

Here ya go!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/electric-cars-may-not-be-so-green-after-all-says-british-study/story-e6frg8y6-1226073103576

New Renter says

Raw says

I don't see anywhere that shows electric cars pollute more than gasoline driven cars.

I understand it still pollutes, because part of the mix contains coal, but gasoline is a 100% fossil fuel, and that would pollute more.

Here ya go!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/electric-cars-may-not-be-so-green-after-all-says-british-study/story-e6frg8y6-1226073103576

I'm not convinced. I'll find something that contradicts this analysis when I get back from work.

Raw says

I'm not convinced. I'll find something that contradicts this analysis when I get back from work.

Great! Looking forward to it!

Raw, it's not rocket surgery.

Electricity in the US comes mainly from fossil fuels. It's not too surprising that electric cars would generate a similar amount of pollution.

Granted, the pollution comes from a power plant and not the car itself. But when considering global warming, the emission location is irrelevant.

freak80 says

That's just it. Much of our electricity comes from coal.

Right now, some of the coal capacity is being replaced with natural gas capacity.

But then why not just buy a NGV? It's probably more efficient to just burn NG directly then to go through the myriad of energy conversions required with an EV.

I have nothing against EV's. I just don't think they're much "greener" then regular cars. And they don't have the range of regular cars.

As I've said on other threads here I'd like manufacturers to take NGV a step further and go with diesel pilot NG engines. All the efficiency and reliability of the diesel cycle with most of the emissions and low fuel costs of NG.

Raw says

I don't see anywhere that shows electric cars pollute more than gasoline driven cars.

Why have you not read the reference (link) that I posted? Here it is again, read the numbers and the calculation. Follow the further references. Convince yourself.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/06/508hy-20120625/comments/page/1/#comments

Raw says

I understand it still pollutes, because part of the mix contains coal, but gasoline is a 100% fossil fuel, and that would pollute more.

Wrong. You are having a mental block here, and it is probably because you do not know the important fact that coal-fired electric plants have efficiency of only 33% at best. That is one BIG reason that coal-electricicty has a huge g(CO2)/kWh. I'm repeating myself, but the grid-mix g(C02)/kWh is ALL that matters.

Do you believe me now? When it comes to energy and the environment, ignorance is very dangerous for our well-being. Please do not fall for simplistic arguments.

I'll post the text instead of the link:

Let us be VERY OVERLY generous and assume that we can generate enough electricity for electric cars using the same fuel mix (coal, natural gas, nuclear, etc) as we are using now, and as described at the page linked (everyone please follow the link and read it)

http://www.casteyanqui.com/ev/longtailpipe/

I will use the numbers from that page to prove my point. Btw, that page sets out to prove that a Nissan Leaf is CO2-better than a 30mpg Nissan Versa. Sure it is, but they are completely missing the bigger point: That a Prius is still better than the electrical Nissan Leaf!

Okay, here goes with the calculation:

According to the link, burning gasoline creates 24.50 pounds of GHG per gallon, well-to-tailpipe. Hence a 30mpg gasoline car produces 81.67
(=100/30*24.50) lbs(CO2)/100miles, as they say using the 30mpg gasoline Nissan Versa as an example. By straight calculation, a Prius at 50mpg similarly produces 49.00 (=100/50*24.50) lbs(CO2)/100 miles.

Now compare the Prius to the Nissan Leaf (100% electric) example. The webpage calculates that the Leaf (BTW a smaller car than the Prius) produces 50.72 lbs(CO2)/100miles, using our current electricity generation mix (grid mix).

Look at that number again: 50.672 lbs/100mi is greater than the 49.00 lbs/100mi number of the Prius !! !! !!

So with current off-the-shelf technology, a Prius is already slightly more CO2-efficient than a Nissan Leaf fully electric car (and very likely also slightly more energy-efficent, one would have to do the calculation, but CO2-efficency is a good proxy for energy-efficiency).

Now, a DIESEL hybrid of prius size will easily get 60-70mpg and maybe 70-80mpg. Look to Peugot, VW, Citroen for exsistence proof. Or do a back-of-the-envelope calcualtion based on a Leaf-sized 50mpg European diesel car.

I'll repeat the conclusion: A Prius plain gasoline hybrid (no plugin) is already more CO2-efficient than a Nissan Leaf. A diesel-electric hybrid is *significantly* more efficient than a Nissan Leaf.

Purely electric cars only make sense if we can generate all the electricty we need without burning coal, which we cannot for a long time. We can do BETTER than electric cars by switching to hybrid diesels NOW.

justme says

Purely electric cars only make sense if we can generate all the electricty we need without burning coal, which we cannot for a long time.

Correct.

Probably the most practical solution right now is a natural gas vehicle, assuming NG prices remain low.

If you really want to be green, live close to work and walk. Cars use a huge amount of energy per person.

I might do just that, mainly because I'm a cheap bast*rd.

How about this for some new math. In CA, 39% of plug-in EV owners have solar panels. In urban environments, I also think there is a case to be made for pollution elsewhere with EVs.

New Renter says

Raw says

I'm not convinced. I'll find something that contradicts this analysis when I get back from work.

Great! Looking forward to it!

I am so disappointed in all of you. Only an oil company can convince someone that electric cars cause more pollution. Are you guys really gonna fall for that BS? The oil companies make hundreds of billions of dollars every damn year, and the only way they can keep making their fat and filthy profits is to misinform the public so they can keep selling their disgusting product to us. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars in propaganda to convince you to buy more gas, they have the politicians in their pocket, and they control many journalists by funding their biased reports to make electric cars, the only product that can destroy the oil company profits, look bad. I urge all of you to reconsider your stand on this.
The Sierra Club does not make money from us, they have no financial interest at stake, and all they want to do is reduce pollution to make our lives, and the lives of our future generations better. Who are you gonna believe?
Thank you!
http://www.sierraclub.org/electric-vehicles/myths.aspx

Raw says

I am so disappointed in all of you. Only an oil company can convince someone that electric cars cause more pollution. Are you guys really gonna fall for that BS?

You should be disappointed with yourself instead. The sierra club page is plain wrong, and it refers to an EPRI study that assumes that 85% of the CO2 emitted by electric power generators will be captured and sequestered by 2050 . This is pie in the sky technology that is completely impossible in the near term (next 20 years), and probably never will be practical. Here is the link to the very flawed "study"

http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/CorporateDocuments/SectorPages/Portfolio/PDM/PHEV-ExecSum-vol1.pdf

The oil company propaganda is not what you think it is. Oil companies LOVE when uninformed people think that electrical vehicles will solve all our problems. Because the same uninformed people will then stop worrying about burning gasoline, and go out and buy the same stupid cars they always have, assuming that someone else is going to solve the problem.

You got snookered.

Raw says

I am so disappointed in all of you. Only an oil company can convince someone that electric cars cause more pollution. Are you guys really gonna fall for that BS?

Have you still not read my calculation? You cannot argue against a correct calculation based on correct data. The truth is staring you right in the face. This is simple science, nothing complicated about it.

justme says

The oil company propaganda is not what you think it is. Oil companies LOVE when uninformed people think that electrical vehicles will solve all our problems. Because the same uninformed people will then stop worrying about burning gasoline, and go out and buy the same stupid cars they always have, assuming that someone else is going to solve the problem.

You got snookered.

Why would the Sierra Club lie? Why?
Oil companies can lie because they want to maintain fat, ridiculous and illegal profits, but the non profits have no stake in this.