Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 75 of 75

Thread: Obama-backed electric car battery-maker files for bankruptcy

  1. #71
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-13-12 @ 01:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    93

    Re: Obama-backed electric car battery-maker files for bankruptcy

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    No, they sent it to 10,000 scientists.
    Apologies, I thought you were referring to a different study.

    Anyway, 70% of the scientists didn't even respond to the survey, and only seventy-nine of them were "climate scientists", whatever that means. If you think seventy-nine climate scientists are representative of the "climate science" community, then you need to retake statistics 101.

    Every single scientist on record with a university or government institution as being any kind of earth scientists. It is, by far, the biggest survey every completed of scientists on the topic. If we don't go with the results from that, what is the alternative? Just making things up willy nilly?

    http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
    They surveyed 10,000 but only got a response from 3,146. I'll see your 3,146 and raise you 9,029 PhDs: Global Warming Petition Project

    Yeah, they're the subsection that studies the climate.
    Technically speaking, every scientist studies "the climate", as "the climate" is nothing more than the aggregation of globalized physical phenomena. Physicists, chemists, biologists, geologists, meteorologists, engineers, mathematicians, statisticians, etc., are all in fields that are relevant to "the climate" or to climate modeling or to the basic application of the scientific method. Citing a survey (not a very scientific sampling method, by the way) that only consists of seventy-nine so-called "climatologists" as evidence that 97% of "climate scientists" say AGW has been "scientifically proven" is just ridiculous and demonstrates a profound ignorance of basic statistical methodology and scientific nomenclature. The mere phrase "scientifically proven" is itself a contradiction in terms. Hypotheses are not "proven" in science, one can only fail to reject them.

    I do. As does the Obama administration. Dr. Chu- the secretary of energy- is focused on a plan to convert over to primarily nuclear over the course of the next 50 years. The problem is that it isn't really totally ready for primetime yet safetywise and it takes forever to deploy plants and they're really expensive. So, he wants to fill in the gap with alternative energy. I think that's about right.
    I commend you for not reflexively rejecting nuclear energy like so many liberals are apt to do, but I think your fixation on green energy and AGW is clouding your judgement as it concerns the immediate energy needs of our country.

    Brian

  2. #72
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 03:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Obama-backed electric car battery-maker files for bankruptcy

    Quote Originally Posted by Free_Radical View Post
    Apologies, I thought you were referring to a different study.

    Anyway, 70% of the scientists didn't even respond to the survey, and only seventy-nine of them were "climate scientists", whatever that means. If you think seventy-nine climate scientists are representative of the "climate science" community, then you need to retake statistics 101.
    A 30% return rate is considered pretty good for any survey. It does not detract from the results. Flagging that as a problem might call into question one's credibility on matters statistical.

    Likewise, 79 climate scientists is quite likely a reasonable number to draw conclusions about what climate scientists think. You have to keep in mind that there are probably fewer than 5,000 climatologists in the world. Using that (probably too large) number, the survey encompassed about 1.5% of climatologists. Keep in mind that national polling firms regularly draw statistically valid conclusions about ALL Americans by polling 1,000 or fewer people -- a far far smaller percentage.
    Last edited by AdamT; 01-27-12 at 03:23 PM.

  3. #73
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-21-14 @ 11:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Obama-backed electric car battery-maker files for bankruptcy

    Quote Originally Posted by Free_Radical View Post
    Anyway, 70% of the scientists didn't even respond to the survey, and only seventy-nine of them were "climate scientists", whatever that means. If you think seventy-nine climate scientists are representative of the "climate science" community, then you need to retake statistics 101.
    Statistically it's ultra representative. For example, if you want to poll all Americans' approval rating of a politician, you need to get around 400 responses to have a 5% margin of error. 3142 of 10,000 scientists gives you a margin of error of 1.4%.

    It doesn't say how many climatologists there are, but they got a 31% response rate overall and 157 (5% of 3146) climatologists responded. So, if we assume that was around 31% too, we get 157 out of 506. That gives us a margin of error of 6.5%.

    Quote Originally Posted by Free_Radical View Post
    They surveyed 10,000 but only got a response from 3,146. I'll see your 3,146 and raise you 9,029 PhDs: Global Warming Petition Project
    LOL. It's funny that you still were unaware that was a hoax 2 years later... Anybody can go there and fill out any information they want. There is no verification. Amongst the esteemed signatories are Bart Simpson, Scary Spice and I.P. Freely. The local paper picked 100 names at random and tried to figure out if they were real. They found that about 80 of them were totally made up- fake phone numbers, fake addresses, fake names. Then they found that about 10 were real people, but they were not connected to science in any way and did not have advanced degrees. Just run of the mill foxbots. About 5 they were unable to determine whether they were real or if they had signed it. 3 were real names and real info, and were really scientists, but when they contacted the person the person said they had not signed it and did in fact believe in AGW. Then there were two who were real people who had actually signed it and had some kind of advanced degree. One of them was a dentist, the other had a master's in finance.

    That all came out way back when. I'm shocked they even still have the website up. lol.

  4. #74
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-13-12 @ 01:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    93

    Re: Obama-backed electric car battery-maker files for bankruptcy

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    A 30% return rate is considered pretty good for any survey. It does not detract from the results. Flagging that as a problem might call into question one's credibility on matters statistical.
    Yes, a one-third response rate is typical for a survey, but typical does not automatically translate into a representative sample.

    Likewise, 79 climate scientists is quite likely a reasonable number to draw conclusions about what climate scientists think.
    That's only true if they're chosen at random.

    You have to keep in mind that there are probably fewer than 5,000 climatologists in the world. Using that (probably too large) number, the survey encompassed about 1.5% of climatologists. Keep in mind that national polling firms regularly draw statistically valid conclusions about ALL Americans by polling 1,000 or fewer people -- a far far smaller percentage.
    That's because they use randomized sampling methods.

    Brian

  5. #75
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-13-12 @ 01:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    93

    Re: Obama-backed electric car battery-maker files for bankruptcy

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Statistically it's ultra representative. For example, if you want to poll all Americans' approval rating of a politician, you need to get around 400 responses to have a 5% margin of error. 3142 of 10,000 scientists gives you a margin of error of 1.4%.
    It's only a "representative" sample if the observational units (scientists) are chosen at random.

    It doesn't say how many climatologists there are, but they got a 31% response rate overall and 157 (5% of 3146) climatologists responded. So, if we assume that was around 31% too, we get 157 out of 506. That gives us a margin of error of 6.5%.
    It says that 79 "climate scientists" responded to the survey. Since they were not chosen at random, there is no way you can claim they're representative of the "climate science" population.

    LOL. It's funny that you still were unaware that was a hoax 2 years later... Anybody can go there and fill out any information they want. There is no verification. Amongst the esteemed signatories are Bart Simpson, Scary Spice and I.P. Freely. The local paper picked 100 names at random and tried to figure out if they were real. They found that about 80 of them were totally made up- fake phone numbers, fake addresses, fake names. Then they found that about 10 were real people, but they were not connected to science in any way and did not have advanced degrees. Just run of the mill foxbots. About 5 they were unable to determine whether they were real or if they had signed it. 3 were real names and real info, and were really scientists, but when they contacted the person the person said they had not signed it and did in fact believe in AGW. Then there were two who were real people who had actually signed it and had some kind of advanced degree. One of them was a dentist, the other had a master's in finance.

    That all came out way back when. I'm shocked they even still have the website up. lol.
    Either you are lying or you've been terribly misinformed.

    I used the search function (ctrl+f) and none of those names (Bart Simpson, Scary Spice, I.P. Freely) appeared on the list of signatories.

    There is a verification process:

    Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered.

    In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists.

    Global Warming Petition Project
    And your other claims are just unsubstantiated assertions.

    If you cannot debate honestly, then you should stop wasting people's time.

    Brian

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •