Nope. Scoring higher than 135 on an IQ test is like weighing something
on a spring scale that is heavy enough to permanently stretch the
spring - all you know about the weight of the object that you are
measuring is that it is off scale.
Here we do know something about the object that was measured, and your
practical intelligence is - to put it kindly - unremarkable. You may
treasure your "near genius IQ" as some kind of security blanket, but
the very fact that you take it seriously demonstrates that you haven't
got a clue.
Bill, what you've written on the topic here fits my own experiences
and is comprehensively reasoned.
It doesn't surprise me to see Eeyore trying to pretend to be an
authority now, as though that helps his case at all. What would help
it is to argue from a comprehensive, instead of a narrow, view that
encompasses _all_ of the knowledge on a topic instead of the picking
and choosing he consistently prefers.
Even the very best minds aren't taken on the mere authority of their
say-so or their scores on an IQ test. Such have been wrong about most
things they believed, anyway. We read them for the way they think
about the world, not for the way they have concluded about it.
It would serve Eeyore a great deal to actually sit down and study
_all_ of the papers from Rasool & Schnieder's 1971 paper on CO2 and
aerosols (a 1D interpretation and probably one of the first papers to
introduce aerosols quantitatively -- despite being wrong on its
conclusions about atmospheric CO2) up through the most modern ones,
which have greatly narrowed in scope and are numerous, today. And
only then, after having mastered them, to bring into the discussion
the appropriate points he's learned in the process.
Rather than throwing some random IQ score he feels proud about... I
had been pulled out of school, a few years before I would attend a
university scholars program here, sporadically for various kinds of IQ
testing. So much, in fact, that the entire year was nearly a loss for
me as far as I'm concerned. Many, many dozens of different kinds of
tests. In cases where they could supposedly assign an IQ number, I
was provided with numbers ranging from 115 or so up to well over
whatever they considered to be "off scale" for their testing, which
they told me at the time for one of them was about 160. None of it
was much good for anything, so far as I know, and I don't consider any
of it of much validity. Your point about "off scale" is very much
on-target about IQ scores, though the entire subject helps none of us
in any way at all about gaining a more comprehensive and detailed
understanding of global climate change and the impacts humans are
having on it.
By the way, I scored a perfect 800 on my SAT math score before
entering college. So what? It says nothing whatsoever about anything
I might say about mathematics here or elsewhere. One doesn't listen
to me about math because I got a high score at one point in my life.
One might choose to listen because I have something to say that is
interesting and seems to apply, if at all. And often enough, I'm
ill-informed about some facet of mathematics, too.
Eeyore should demonstrate his knowledge by going and getting some. Not
flogging some number he childishly clings to in desperation.
Jon
