Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-28-2012, 02:07 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,904,904 times
Reputation: 2618

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
Ok I know you may not have much experience with Wikipedia but if you go to the bottem there are a series of links to support the information in the article If you bothered to actually spend 5 minutes looking at it you would find the information in links 106-7.

Like I said if you are too lazy to open links and read I cannot help you, but it really makes you look, well dumb, asking for the same stuff over and over and over again when it is posted in links over and over and over again.
I know quite a bit about wiki, which is why I don't use it for anything serious that requires a direct appropriate source.

Even Universities do not allow wiki for citations (because it is susceptible to bias and often contains incorrect references).

And I shouldn't have to spend 5 mins looking up research that people who are posting here and the author of the articles that were posted didn't even take the time to properly cite it in their mention. If you are your article are too lazy to cite it, then it is likely not worth the effort reading.

Try not being lazy maybe?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-28-2012, 02:10 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,904,904 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
Maybe in right wing world, but the fact is neither you nor any single other person in this thread has produced a single piece of evidence to discredit ACC or even discredit any surveys about ACC except for unsubstantiated claims that I am just supposed to believe because you said so.

Maybe this is why Conservatives hate science, because they have to empirically prove their fantasies.

More propaganda for your pet little party system tantrums?

How about answering to the issues I mentioned? Do you think their methodology is acceptable? Well?

Read their damn methodology or are you also too damn lazy to read the junk research you pass off for people to accept blindly?

And you wonder why people are laughing at the climate alarmist?

Seriously, your position is dead and has been dead for years. Nobody takes it seriously anymore because they got tired of reading romper room methods being passed off as science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2012, 02:32 PM
 
Location: Va. Beach
6,392 posts, read 5,147,195 times
Reputation: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
Maybe in right wing world, but the fact is neither you nor any single other person in this thread has produced a single piece of evidence to discredit ACC or even discredit any surveys about ACC except for unsubstantiated claims that I am just supposed to believe because you said so.

Maybe this is why Conservatives hate science, because they have to empirically prove their fantasies.
Unfortunately, the same can be said about your evidence. It's over 3 years old, and there is nothing to substantiate it, and you are asking everyone to believe it because YOU say so.

Maybe that's the problem, that Conservatives are asking you to empirically prove your fantasies!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2012, 02:51 PM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,045,682 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozzie679 View Post
Is this the source cited by Fox News? Journal home : Nature Climate Change

I can't find the quiz...
I did a little bit of digging. They measured two things -- "science literacy" and "numeracy" -- and then combined the results into one metric they called "science literacy/numeracy." Participants were asked 8 science questions (the percentages are the percent of the 1540 who responded correctly):

86% •The center of the Earth is very hot? [true/false]
84% •All radioactivity is man-made? [true/false]
68% •Lasers work by focusing sound waves? [true/false]
62% •Electrons are smaller than atoms? [true/false]
72% •Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth?
45% •How long does it take for the Earth to go around the Sun? [one day, one month, one year]
69% •It is the father’s gene that decides whether the baby is a boy or a girl?
68% •Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria? [true/false]


And then 14 math word problems to measure "numeracy" (I'm assuming there was some sort of figure for the 2 questions I underlined):

58% •Imagine that we roll a fair, six-sided die 1,000 times. (That would mean that we roll one die from a pair of dice.) Out of 1,000 rolls, how many times do you think the die would come up as an even number?

60% •In the BIG BUCKS LOTTERY, the chances of winning a $10.00 prize are 1%. What is your best guess about how many people would win a $10.00 prize if 1,000 people each buy a single ticket from BIG BUCKS?

28% •In the ACME PUBLISHING SWEEPSTAKES, the chance of winning a car is 1 in 1,000. What percent of tickets of ACME PUBLISHING SWEEPSTAKES win a car?

86% •Which of the following numbers represents the biggest risk of getting a disease?

88% •Which of the following numbers represents the biggest risk of getting a disease?

64% •If Person A’s risk of getting a disease is 1% in ten years, and Person B’s risk is double that of A’s, what is B’s risk?

21% •If Person A’s chance of getting a disease is 1 in 100 in ten years, and person B’s risk is double that of A, what is B’s risk?

If the chance of getting a disease is 10%, how many people would be expected to get the disease:
84% •A: Out of 100?
81% •B: Out of 1000?

72% •If the chance of getting a disease is 20 out of 100, this would be the same as having a __% chance of getting the disease.

48% •The chance of getting a viral infection is .0005. Out of 10,000 people, about how many of them are expected to get infected?

3% •Suppose you have a close friend who has a lump in her breast and must have a mammogram. Of 100 women like her, 10 of them actually have a malignant tumor and 90 of them do not. Of the 10 women who actually have a tumor, the mammogram indicates correctly that 9 of them have a tumor and indicates incorrectly that 1 of them does not have a tumor. Of the 90 women who do not have a tumor, the mammogram indicates correctly that 81 of them do not have a tumor and indicates incorrectly that 9 of them do have a tumor. The table below summarizes all of this information. Imagine that your friend tests positive (as if she had a tumor), what is the likelihood that she actually has a tumor?

12% •A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?

27% •In a lake, there is a patch of lilypads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake?


I'm not sure where Fox News got their 56% and 57% numbers. I didn't see that when reading the paper and the supplementary information (I simply could have missed it though).


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...limate1547.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...ate1547-s1.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2012, 03:49 PM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,045,682 times
Reputation: 4828
Again, what exactly do the opinions of laypeople mean -- whether they believe or not -- when it comes to the science of human industry and the greenhouse effect and its relation to things like global climate change and ocean acidity? Nothing as far as I'm concerned.

And now after seeing the actual quiz, I wouldn't trust the average respondent (58% correct) on anything relating to math or science whatsoever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2012, 06:14 PM
 
3,378 posts, read 3,693,646 times
Reputation: 710
I think that most people have missed the point here. The most important thing about global warming is not the scientists or the facts... The most important thing is getting people on your side of the argument. If Al Gore can keep the global warming hype going then they (the liberals) can get money, votes, etc. 1 way that liberals like to do this is to create a stereotypical "us vs them" attitude. We agree with 90% of scientists so we must be right. Note how they acted in 2008 when the topic came up?
To all the alarmists, I'll leave you with something to chew on...
42.7% of all statistics are just made up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2012, 06:16 PM
 
Location: TX
1,096 posts, read 1,827,395 times
Reputation: 594
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
Again, what exactly do the opinions of laypeople mean -- whether they believe or not -- when it comes to the science of human industry and the greenhouse effect and its relation to things like global climate change and ocean acidity? Nothing as far as I'm concerned.

And now after seeing the actual quiz, I wouldn't trust the average respondent (58% correct) on anything relating to math or science whatsoever.
The study doesn't try to prove the presence or absence of ACC. It's a study on the characteristics of the two subsets in the general population of laypeople with respect to whether or not they believe in ACC or not. So since that is the population they were trying to study, it seems pretty important that they include laypeople in the study.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2012, 07:26 PM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,045,682 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyanger View Post
The study doesn't try to prove the presence or absence of ACC. It's a study on the characteristics of the two subsets in the general population of laypeople with respect to whether or not they believe in ACC or not. So since that is the population they were trying to study, it seems pretty important that they include laypeople in the study.
I know. I wasn't speaking to the study, I was speaking to the posters who want to relate this study in any way to global warming.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2012, 07:33 PM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,795,636 times
Reputation: 17862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
Why not ask people who actually are scientists and deal with science for a living what they think.

Oh I know why...Its because you lose.

Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real

LOL...... give me a minute to compose myself.....

Randomgoogler, this study does directly poll the scientists and it's other weaknesses starting off with the clear bias of it's lead author have already been gone over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2012, 08:50 PM
 
14,848 posts, read 8,477,152 times
Reputation: 7300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatt View Post
Interesting, in that MANY people who believe in global warming, also believe that those who don't are less intelligent. This proves otherwise.

Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believers, study says | Fox News


Yes, and the skeptics are about 100 points higher in honesty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:00 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top