Is Gobal Cooling a Continuing Threat?

[Grat3fulh3ad]

The poll you cited is of those whose papers were published. That amounts to less than 1/1000 of a percent of relevent individuals.

I never use a percent graph unless I can sample 100% of the population.

You sound less credible with your every post.

I could give you double the margin of error, and the vast majority of people who should know, believe.

Perhaps some education about polling accuracy and sample size is in order...

http://janda.org/c10/Lectures/topic05/GallupFAQ.htm

Public opinion polls would have less value in a democracy if the public - the very people whose views are represented by the polls - didn't have confidence in the results. This confidence does not come easily. The process of polling is often mysterious, particularly to those who don't see how the views of 1,000 people can represent those of hundreds of millions. Many Americans contact the Gallup Organization each year

To ask how our results can differ so much from their own, personal impressions of what people think,
To learn how we go about selecting people for inclusion in our polls, and
To find out why they have never been interviewed.
The public's questions indicate a healthy dose of skepticism about polling. Their questions, however, are usually accompanied by a strong and sincere desire to find out what's going on under Gallup's hood.

It turns out that the callers who reach Gallup's switchboard may be just the tip of the iceberg. Survey researchers have actually conducted public opinion polls to find out how much confidence Americans have in polls -- and have discovered an interesting problem. People generally believe the results of polls, but they do not believe in the scientific principles on which polls are based. In a recent Gallup "poll on polls," respondents said that polls generally do a good job of forecasting elections and are accurate when measuring public opinion on other issues. Yet when asked about the scientific sampling foundation on which all polls are based, Americans were skeptical. Most said that a survey of 1,500-2,000 respondents -- a larger than average sample size for national polls -- cannot represent the views of all Americans.

In addition to these questions about sampling validity, the public often asks questions about the questions themselves -- that is, who decides what questions to ask the public, and how those looking at poll results can be sure that the answers reflect the public's true opinion about the issues at hand.

One key question faced by Gallup statisticians: how many interviews does it take to provide an adequate cross-section of Americans? The answer is, not many -- that is, if the respondents to be interviewed are selected entirely at random, giving every adult American an equal probability of falling into the sample. The current US adult population in the continental United States is 187 million. The typical sample size for a Gallup poll which is designed to represent this general population is 1,000 national adults.

The actual number of people which need to be interviewed for a given sample is to some degree less important than the soundness of the fundamental equal probability of selection principle. In other words - although this is something many people find hard to believe - if respondents are not selected randomly, we could have a poll with a million people and still be significantly less likely to represent the views of all Americans than a much smaller sample of just 1,000 people - if that sample is selected randomly.

To be sure, there is some gain in sampling accuracy which comes from increasing sample sizes. Common sense - and sampling theory - tell us that a sample of 1,000 people probably is going to be more accurate than a sample of 20. Surprisingly, however, once the survey sample gets to a size of 500, 600, 700 or more, there are fewer and fewer accuracy gains which come from increasing the sample size. Gallup and other major organizations use sample sizes of between 1,000 and 1,500 because they provide a solid balance of accuracy against the increased economic cost of larger and larger samples. If Gallup were to - quite expensively - use a sample of 4,000 randomly selected adults each time it did its poll, the increase in accuracy over and beyond a well-done sample of 1,000 would be minimal, and generally speaking, would not justify the increase in cost.

Statisticians over the years have developed quite specific ways of measuring the accuracy of samples - so long as the fundamental principle of equal probability of selection is adhered to when the sample is drawn.

For example, with a sample size of 1,000 national adults, (derived using careful random selection procedures), the results are highly likely to be accurate within a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. Thus, if we find in a given poll that President Clinton's approval rating is 50%, the margin of error indicates that the true rating is very likely to be between 53% and 47%. It is very unlikely to be higher or lower than that.

To be more specific, the laws of probability say that if we were to conduct the same survey 100 times, asking people in each survey to rate the job Bill Clinton is doing as president, in 95 out of those 100 polls, we would find his rating to be between 47% and 53%. In only five of those surveys would we expect his rating to be higher or lower than that due to chance error.

As discussed above, if we increase the sample size to 2,000 rather than 1,000 for a Gallup poll, we would find that the results would be accurate within plus or minus 2% of the underlying population value, a gain of 1% in terms of accuracy, but with a 100% increase in the cost of conducting the survey. These are the cost value decisions which Gallup and other survey organizations make when they decide on sample sizes for their surveys.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

looks like a BT article

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Here's a comment from that article you cited:

Also... You're being misleading here...

That quote DID NOT come from the article.
That quote was some reader's response to the article...


Typical denier deceptiveness, I guess I should expect it by now.

 

[Baba Ku]

What are we to say about Gallup poll results if they only poll dipshits?

lol...I am curious just how many "credible" people are in here debating this subject?
Do we have some folks with credibility in this area in our midst?

LOL..I didn't think so....

 

[Ben Tokin]

You sound less credible with your every post.

The AGW argument is failing because the people involved in the information gathering have acknowledged their fraud and those funding it are only in it to swindle the uninformed public.

Graphs used to persuade the public look good, but they are simply statistical manipulation. Using percents of individuals who were prechosen to perpetrate a fraud is not scientific evidence.

Graphs showing temperature changes in tenths of a degree over 150 years, when the change is only within 1/2 of a degree? This is manipulation. If the graph was stated in degrees it would be a line that looks like this:

--------------------------------------------no change over 150 years

Using graphs to perpetrate a fraud is not science, it's deception!

As the article I posted above shows, and it's only one of many, AGW is a hoax perpetrated by a bunch of weasels to bamboozle the uninformed and enrich themselves!

Use absolute facts as I have done and prove me wrong!

 

[Ben Tokin]

Also... You're being misleading here...

That quote DID NOT come from the article.
That quote was some reader's response to the article...


Typical denier deceptiveness, I guess I should expect it by now.

What do you think a comment is?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

The AGW argument is failing because the people involved in the information gathering have acknowledged their fraud and those funding it are only in it to swindle the uninformed public.

That's a lie... fabricated... It hasn't and isn't happening. There was no fraud, and no 'admissions' of fraud have been made.

Use absolute facts as I have done and prove me wrong!

Waving bye to another shred of your waning credibility?


absolute facts... lmao.


I have used completely verifiable evidence... Like the greenhouse properties of CO2 which have been known for over a century, and have been confirmed by measurement over and over and over... but I'd look silly if I called it an absolute fact, regardless of the high degree of certainty.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

What do you think a comment is?

Do you not get the difference in from and to?
At least, you weren't lying earlier when you said you are confused.



A comment FROM an article is much different than a comment TO an article.

 

[sac beh]

What are we to say about Gallup poll results if they only poll dipshits?

lol...I am curious just how many "credible" people are in here debating this subject?
Do we have some folks with credibility in this area in our midst?

LOL..I didn't think so....

Since no one here is a climate scientist, credibility in this context is dependent upon one's reliance on the science and scientific sources to speak for themselves.

If I remember, your major contribution to the thread was an ad hominem attack along with a gif of polar bears.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

If I remember, your major contribution to the thread was an ad hominem attack along with a gif of polar bears.

you remember.

 

[Ben Tokin]

Again, the personal attacks are simply a distraction in an attempt to bandage your wounds.

This, as I've said before, is admission of defeat.

Admit it! Your argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny!

You've lost your moral compass and are resorting to desperation tactics!

 

[Ben Tokin]

Do you not get the difference in from and to?
At least, you weren't lying earlier when you said you are confused.



A comment FROM an article is much different than a comment TO an article.

I recall someone saying "It depends what the meaning of "is" is."

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Again, the personal attacks are simply a distraction in an attempt to bandage your wounds.

This, as I've said before, is admission of defeat.

Admit it! Your argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny!

You've lost your moral compass and are resorting to desperation tactics!

I've not made any attacks at all.

My arguments are rock solid under scrutiny... I just wish you would actually scrutinize them.

No tactics here, the misinformation, rhetoric, and lies all come from the denier camp. Your above post is yet another straw grasping attempt to mischaracterize and mislead.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I recall someone saying "It depends what the meaning of "is" is."

Which is completely different from, and completely irrelevant to the definitions of the two different words "from" and "to".


It is almost christmas, so you'd better get that sorted before you fill out the gift tags







Hint: "is" is the exact same word as "is", while "from" and "to" are opposite of each other and spelled completely differently.


P.S. I am really flabberghasted and amused that you would even try to argue this one, though I guess your comment was really more to deflect attention your misuse of language, than to actually make any point.

 

[Ben Tokin]

I've not made any attacks at all.

My arguments are rock solid under scrutiny... I just wish you would actually scrutinize them.

No tactics here, the misinformation, rhetoric, and lies all come from the denier camp. Your above post is yet another straw grasping attempt to mischaracterize and mislead.

OK, then address the comments I made on the graph issues.

Also, tell me why the article published in Science Daily on the core samples doesn't completely debunk the entire AGW fraud?

 

[ibjamming]

OK, then address the comments I made on the graph issues.

Also, tell me why the article published in Science Daily on the core samples doesn't completely debunk the entire AGW fraud?

Who keeps deleting my posts?

When will someone listen??? It's NOT even a "problem" yet. We're right now at +4, we've historically been at +8 several times in the past...until it passes +8, there is nothing we humans can do. It's a natural cycle. Plus 8 will cause a lot of problems for mankind, but until it peaks naturally, there is no stopping the natural rise.

It's a "made up" problem...like the terrorist threat in America.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

OK, then address the comments I made on the graph issues.

I already did. You ignored it.

Also, tell me why the article published in Science Daily on the core samples doesn't completely debunk the entire AGW fraud?

Well... since you keep ignoring the explanation, let me post it up again for you to keep ignoring.


Because is demonstrates past climate sensitivity. Scientists do not ignore past fluctuations in climate, they account for them. guess it is almost time to post the full text to the sensitivity information you ignored... Can you really not just filter my post and go look at the explanation? Do I have to completely spoon feed you?




Also... My mother cooked me a hamburger when I was a kid, but that doesn't mean my mother is the only source of hamburgers.

CO2 is verifiable driving the current warming by causing an energy imbalance... This does not mean CO2 is the only thing that can throw the scales out of balance... The history of the planets climate clearly demonstrates this sensitivity.


I really wish you would quit with all the posturing, and feigning actual interest.... I keep on pointing you at the answers to your questions, and every time you change the subject... only to later pretend I never answered you.

That's why I am just about fed up with you, you're all rhetoric and tactics, and not on any level about reasonable exchange of info.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

until it peaks naturally, there is no stopping the natural rise.

We can reduce the human contribution to the bottom line.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Who keeps deleting my posts?

When will someone listen??? It's NOT even a "problem" yet. We're right now at +4, we've historically been at +8 several times in the past...until it passes +8, there is nothing we humans can do. It's a natural cycle. Plus 8 will cause a lot of problems for mankind, but until it peaks naturally, there is no stopping the natural rise.

It's a "made up" problem...like the terrorist threat in America.

Not a potential problem for the rock called earth, but is a potential problem for most of the life here.


It is not a made up problem, like the terrorist threat is.


Man is undeniable adding significantly to a known greenhouse gas.
Greenhouse gasses observably keep the planet warmer.
It is century old science which has been repeatedly confirmed over the course of that century.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I'd like to know how many people posting in this thread have ever done research on any topic in a university library.

I have on several occasions.