Emil O W Kirkegaard

Moreover, citing 'letters' is also not very compelling, as your opponents can cite their own http://www.intelligence.martinsewell.com/Gottfredson1997.pdf …

The letter that was ignored or refused by over half the people it was sent to and that contains hardly any actual IQ researchers but tons of Pioneer Fun supported racists? Very convincing stuff

Once again, that argument is weak, as it requires demonstrating that a) the letter was ignored or refused BECAUSE they objected to the science (as opposed to social/career considerations); and b) that the letters you cite reflect the consensus of the discipline and aren't...

...compromised by the same ideological biases you impute to your opponents' letters.

A) That isn't required in the least B). Considering two are statements of entire professional societies and the letter is signed by over a hundred of the leaders in the field I think it's a safe bet to conclude it is at or near consensus

A) Why not? B) The letter you cite doesn't even specify where the disagreement is or on what their objections are based; C) 'Safe bets' are what we say when we're not sure, but want to project being sure about something. To be sure about it, you need to actually field a...

representative survey canvassing the experts in the field on specific questions relevant to the debate (as Rindermann et al. attempted, but which you claim was flawed).