# Once again, a pitting of our local pseudo-scientific racialists

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184>\
**Category:** The BBQ Pit\
**Created:** [January 5, 2013, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184 "2013-01-05T19:21:55Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 431

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\
**Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184/431 "2013-01-14T06:40:23Z")

</div>

> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> I don’t think the genetic gap is anywhere near as large as the racists and Republicans would like you to believe but there is about as much evidence for a genetic cause of some of the IQ gap as there is for anthropomorphic global warming. Its an uncomfortable truth and it probably serves very little purpose other than to pursue racist agendas but if you keep denying that it is not only possible but likely, it makes your judgment seem less reliable.

Wrong, the evidence for AGW is overwhelming and experts do come even with reports on the probabilities:

[http://www.ipcc.ch/publications\_and\_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html)

> [@](#):
>
> Human influences have: {2.4}
> 
> ```
> very likely contributed to sea level rise during the latter half of the 20th century
> likely contributed to changes in wind patterns, affecting extra-tropical storm tracks and temperature patterns
> likely increased temperatures of extreme hot nights, cold nights and cold days
> more likely than not increased risk of heat waves, area affected by drought since the 1970s and frequency of heavy precipitation events. 
> 
> ```

What is “very likely” or “likely” here? The experts are using those terms with careful thought:

[http://www.ipcc.ch/publications\_and\_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-6.html](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-6.html)

> [@](#):
>
> Likelihood Terminology … Likelihood of the occurrence/ outcome  
> Virtually certain … \> 99% probability  
> Extremely likely… \> 95% probability  
> Very likely… \> 90% probability  
> Likely… \> 66% probability  
> More likely than not … \> 50% probability

That BTW was the last IPCC report from a few years back, the latest is reported to come with even higher probabilities for problems to come.

Now, if you are on solid ground you need to point at the recent mess of work and consensus from geneticists or biologists pointing at what they consider “likely” (66%) because most of the items I have seen from many contributors of the coming IPCC report point out that a few of those "likely"s are now “very likely” (90% provability)

So, where are the 90% probable tables from the majority of geneticists and biologists of the world and what do they point to? Or just to be easy, the likely 66%?

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/once-again-a-pitting-of-our-local-pseudo-scientific-racialists/646184)._