05 May '19 17:59>4 edits
@metal-brain saidWhat does that above assertion supposed to mean? I have absolutely no idea.
You are excusing false information as if it is normal.
Does ANYONE here know what that might mean?
@metal-brain saidWhat does that above assertion supposed to mean? I have absolutely no idea.
You are excusing false information as if it is normal.
@metal-brain saidSoooo.... the term "...excusing false information..."(your quote), means what, exactly?
The Consensus Project's claim "man is the cause" is a lie.
Skeptical Science has had years to correct their mistake of relying on the consensus project for false info. Now that they refuse to do so it is evident they are deliberate liars.
@metal-brain saidThere ARE such studies, hundreds of them. The fact you don't believe them is YOUR problem not the rest of the world. You have to admit you are in the minority here about climate change, 'here' meaning the whole of the science community. We have presented a number of sites showing the data and such but you just refuse to acknowledge such, and just SAYING, 'unproved' is NOT a defense when in fact it HAS been shown to be true and will be more and more obvious as time goes on and one report I just say said Carbon tax is the best way to deal with excess CO2, as much as you want to poo poo such ideas as CO2 excess causing climate change, it will become exceedingly obvious in the future and you are too stubborn, stuck on your old ways, to see that.
The Consensus Project's claim "man is the cause" is a lie. There is no study to back up the claim.
People who claim they don't understand this can't prove it wrong, so they pretend it doesn't make sense even though they have debated this subject over and over again and understand what I am saying perfectly.
When humy says this doesn't make sense, what he is really saying is he understands it very well, but knows he cannot prove it wrong so he plays ignorant.
@sonhouse saidShow me the peer reviewed study. Talk is cheap and you know better after me correcting you countless times. You are in denial of the facts. You cannot say the majority of climate scientists agree with you when only a minority were polled. A minority is not a majority. Do you understand?
There ARE such studies, hundreds of them. The fact you don't believe them is YOUR problem not the rest of the world. You have to admit you are in the minority here about climate change, 'here' meaning the whole of the science community. We have presented a number of sites showing the data and such but you just refuse to acknowledge such, and just SAYING, 'unproved' is NOT a ...[text shortened]... ids never happen at all because our KIDS are dead from starvation or flooding. It's a long term bet.
@metal-brain saidYou seem to think that we are obliged to have perfect information to make any knowledge claim. All polls involve questioning a subset and extrapolating to an entire population. The statistics come with confidence intervals to tell you how reliable they are. You'd need to show that the study design was flawed to effectively argue against it.
Show me the peer reviewed study. Talk is cheap and you know better after me correcting you countless times. You are in denial of the facts. You cannot say the majority of climate scientists agree with you when only a minority were polled. A minority is not a majority. Do you understand?
Show me the study.
@deepthought saidHe has repeatedly showed an apparent lack of understanding of some extremely basic statistical concepts that you certainly don't have to have any real expertise in statistic like I do to understand and I think you have just touch on one of those lack of understanding.
You seem to think that we are obliged to have perfect information to make any knowledge claim. All polls involve questioning a subset and extrapolating to an entire population. The statistics come with confidence intervals to tell you how reliable they are. You'd need to show that the study design was flawed to effectively argue against it.
To count as a scientific ...[text shortened]... cedure. These results are not unshakeable but they are reliable in the sense I've tried to outline.
@deepthought saidMore biased jargon.
You seem to think that we are obliged to have perfect information to make any knowledge claim. All polls involve questioning a subset and extrapolating to an entire population. The statistics come with confidence intervals to tell you how reliable they are. You'd need to show that the study design was flawed to effectively argue against it.
To count as a scientific ...[text shortened]... cedure. These results are not unshakeable but they are reliable in the sense I've tried to outline.
@humy saidLet's say I polled some of the Senators to get their opinion on AGW. Instead of polling all 200 I only polled 60 because nobody else replied to the email I sent.
He has repeatedly showed an apparent lack of understanding of some extremely basic statistical concepts that you certainly don't have to have any real expertise in statistic like I do to understand and I think you have just touch on one of those lack of understanding.
If we at least more or less randomly sampled a proportion of a population (of something), and even if its an a ...[text shortened]... he whole population has characteristic Y. This is mainly where he shows an absence of understanding.
@metal-brain saidYou're insisting on perfect information. It is not necessary for a poll to poll the majority. The statement only has to be 95% certain to be true (or whatever threshold they used). What reason do you have to believe that the sample is biased to people who believe whatever the poll was asking? To effectively argue against this you need to attack the study design beyond complaining that they didn't ask everyone.
More biased jargon.
Show me a poll of climate scientists that polled a majority of climate scientists. The majority of a minority is still a minority. It is not truthful to claim a minority polled is a majority opinion. The only way you can factually assert a majority opinion is to poll a majority to begin with.
It is mind blowing to me that out of all of the money ...[text shortened]... ave no peer reviewed study to back up their claim because it is a lie. You need to accept that fact.
@deepthought saidPolling by e-mail with no follow up is sloppy and insulting to those that value proper polling. Have you ever heard of a spam folder? Also, how are climate scientists supposed to know it is a proper poll? Do you have any idea how many emails are sent climate scientists only for them to find out the poll questions are BS meant to get the result they want? Most probably wouldn't reply even if they did see it.
You're insisting on perfect information. It is not necessary for a poll to poll the majority. The statement only has to be 95% certain to be true (or whatever threshold they used). What reason do you have to believe that the sample is biased to people who believe whatever the poll was asking? To effectively argue against this you need to attack the study design beyond complaining that they didn't ask everyone.
@metal-brain saidA sample of only 60 individuals would yield a relatively uncertain statistical result because that's a relatively low number for a sample. The number of scientists that took part in the polls was considerably more than 60 thus gives us a much more certain statistical result.
Let's say I polled some of the Senators to get their opinion on AGW. Instead of polling all 200 I only polled 60 because nobody else replied to the email I sent.
The poll shows that of those 60 Senators 58% of those 60 senators say man is not the main cause.Then, unless you are given information that the poll was significantly sampled biased, and unless you have other relevant information to take into account that should change your estimates, your most rational default best guess should be that very roughly 59% of senators do indeed think that. However, because of the very low sample size (only 60) you will have to allow for a very wide margin of error such as 59% ± 20% with, say, a large 30% chance of the actual percentage being outside that range, which makes it highly uncertain and rough estimate. This is not the situation for the scientists polled because we have is a much larger sample size for that giving a much lower margin of error.
Then you ask how many of those 60 senators are republicans and I say it doesn't matter.But it does matter so you would be wrong. It matters because if there is a much greater or much lesser proportion of republicans in the sample than that in the government then that means there would likely be significant sample bias. In contrast, there was no evidence of and no reason to think there would be significant sample bias in the poll of the scientists and you certainly have failed to yet show the contrary. So your point is?...
@humy saidWell, a rational argument might be to point to self-selection bias. One could argue that a hypothesis such as the following hasn't been ruled out:
A sample of only 60 individuals would yield a relatively uncertain statistical result because that's a relatively low number for a sample. The number of scientists that took part in the polls was considerably more than 60 thus gives us a much more certain statistical result.
[quote] The poll shows that of those 60 Senators 58% of those 60 senators say man is not the main cause. ...[text shortened]... there was no evidence of significant sample bias in the poll of the scientists. So your point is?...
@humy said60 out of 200 is 30%.
A sample of only 60 individuals would yield a relatively uncertain statistical result because that's a relatively low number for a sample. The number of scientists that took part in the polls was considerably more than 60 thus gives us a much more certain statistical result.
[quote] The poll shows that of those 60 Senators 58% of those 60 senators say man is not the main cause. ...[text shortened]... poll of the scientists and you certainly have failed to yet show the contrary. So your point is?...