Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Bottom of the Barrel

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6189
(6198 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/7/2014 at 01:13 PM
The good news is that football season starts soon!

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4733
(4739 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/7/2014 at 01:25 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
The results of the poll are a fair representation of American voters.



There are nearly 320 million people in the United States.

You actually think a sample size of 1446 can accurately and fairly represent 320 million people?!?

Wow. I'm gob smacked by your naiveté.




Do you entirely reject the use of polling to reflect current public opinion? Because the politicans sure don't. They spend millions on their own internal polls. Or do you only reject it when it says what you don't like.


Interesting comment. Isn't that exactly what you did in the presidential election of 2012? I remember bantering with you on this very point. Didn't you claim that the polls would be proven wrong (I'm guessing) because you were against Obama?

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6189
(6198 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/7/2014 at 02:12 PM
We should really stop picking on the Polls.

Wonderful people, country and food!
While most Americans may know of the pierogi dish, their golabki and Ch?opski Posi?ek are fantastic.

The folks who live in central Jersey and Chicago know this!




 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5032
(5027 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/7/2014 at 02:16 PM
Doughron, by popular vote, Reagan won in the largest landslide, but Obama comes in 2nd since '84. He won by 5 million votes in 2012 and 10 million in 2008. Bush Sr and Clinton never won by that much, I believe.
 

Peach Master



Karma:
Posts: 793
(793 all sites)
Registered: 3/23/2010
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/7/2014 at 05:45 PM
To weed out the low info voters the pollsters first asked who the president was.
 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6177
(6176 all sites)
Registered: 4/18/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/7/2014 at 07:28 PM
quote:
And they got the 97% figure from the survey I've tried to get the climate alarmists to read. 97% of 77 is 75 respondents. Not a very large number to call for mass change in economic and global policy is it.


Again if you would like to stick to facts and reality the 97% figure really came from.

In reality the 97% is based on over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013).


A new analysis of scientists’ articles on global warming and climate change has found almost unanimous agreement that humans are the main cause.

The comprehensive examination of peer-reviewed articles on global warming showed an overwhelming consensus among scientists that much of the recent warming is anthropogenic—the result of human activities.

The study, led by Skeptical Science’s John Cook from the University of Queensland’s Global Climate Institute, saw an international team of 24 scientists and volunteer researchers analyze 11,944 international scientific abstracts published over the last 21 years.

The researchers identified 4,000 abstracts that stated an opinion on whether humans were causing climate change and found 97.1 percent endorsed the theory.

Cook says:

The importance of raising awareness of the scientific consensus on climate change cannot be overstated. Typically, the general public think around 50 percent of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. The Consensus Project has shown that the reality is 97 percent.

While the vast majority of those that discussed whether or not humans are changing the climate agreed they were, the vast majority of the papers—nearly two thirds—did not express any view on the cause of the climate change. The researchers say this shows that scientists believe the debate has “moved on” and now treat the issue as a given.

Published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the study is the most comprehensive of its kind to date.

While it cements the overwhelming scientific consensus on human-induced global warming, it also highlights the yawning gap between the science and public perception of it, and how this uncertainty is holding back action.

Cook says:

There is a gaping chasm between the actual consensus and public perception. When people understand that scientists agree on global warming, they’re more likely to support policies that take action on it.

Experts have attributed this gap to effective misinformation techniques employed by vested interests such as fossil fuel companies and the climate change denier movement.

This comprehensive study shows that policy makers and business can no longer hide behind any perceived or alleged uncertainty, as the science is unequivocal.
[Edited on 7/7/2014 by Peachypetewi]


Question: If you say the 97% figure came from a study done in 2013, what did the climate alarmists use for the years before that study came pout to get their 97% from, and where did all the news outlets get their stories from back in 2009? Hint, from the 2009 survey, as stated in the study you are referring to.

The study you refer to: skepitcalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html
gives the factors of where that 97% figure you refer to comes from. It's not a survey or poll, but a keyword search done on papers with the words "global warming" and "global climate change" found in the ISI Web Of Science. 12,000 papers were found in that search.

I'm going to quote the study, and let you see how biased it is.
"The 97% Consensus Results
Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the self ratings , nearly 1,400 were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human caused global warming.

We found that two-thirds of the papers didn't express a position on the subject in the abstract, which confirms we were conservative in our initial abstract ratings. This result isn't surprising for two reasons: 1) most journals have strict word limits for their abstracts, and 2) frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious. For example, would you expect every geological report to note in it's abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?" End quoting article.

I'd hate to remind a well know scientific person such as the author that the Earth isn't a sphere, but actually an ovoid shape.

So the 97% is based on 34% of 12,000 papers. Or you could say it's actually 33% of the papers used in the study?

 

____________________
All photos posted of family, friends, and places, including those of historic ABB value, by this poster are copyrighted by the poster, or posted by permission of the copywriter.
None of those photos may be reproduced for commercial gain.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6177
(6176 all sites)
Registered: 4/18/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/7/2014 at 08:20 PM
If you want to take time to read a more thorough version, with more explanations of the breakdowns on the papers, and actual numbers and percentages, go to: iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Believe it, or not, it's actually easier reading this article.

 

____________________
All photos posted of family, friends, and places, including those of historic ABB value, by this poster are copyrighted by the poster, or posted by permission of the copywriter.
None of those photos may be reproduced for commercial gain.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/8/2014 at 11:20 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
The results of the poll are a fair representation of American voters.



There are nearly 320 million people in the United States.

You actually think a sample size of 1446 can accurately and fairly represent 320 million people?!?

Wow. I'm gob smacked by your naiveté.




Do you entirely reject the use of polling to reflect current public opinion? Because the politicans sure don't. They spend millions on their own internal polls. Or do you only reject it when it says what you don't like.


Interesting comment. Isn't that exactly what you did in the presidential election of 2012? I remember bantering with you on this very point. Didn't you claim that the polls would be proven wrong (I'm guessing) because you were against Obama?


I never said the polls were inaccurate. I said they would not prove to be true come election day. I was wrong. Never for one second did I say that a scientific sampling of public opinion was inaccurate because it only questions a small number of people. That is what you seem to be doing. There are lots of a reasons a poll might be inaccurate and obviously when predicting what action people will actually take going forward it can be even more inaccurate. But your rejection appears to be due to the sample size which would essentially reject any and all polls since by definition they take a statistical sample.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/8/2014 at 11:33 AM
quote:
Doughron, by popular vote, Reagan won in the largest landslide, but Obama comes in 2nd since '84. He won by 5 million votes in 2012 and 10 million in 2008. Bush Sr and Clinton never won by that much, I believe.


Raw votes (which I don't have in front of me) are irrelevant as the population has consistently increased. What is relevant is percentage of the vote.

In 1980 Reagan won by 9 percentage points. Bear in mind the presence of John Anderson which likely held down Reagan's vote. In 1984 Reagan won by EIGHTEEN percentage ponts. In 1988 Bush won by 7 percentage points. In 1992 Clinton won by 6.5 percentage points. Bear in mind the presence of Ross Perot which likely held down Clinton's vote. In 1996 Clinton won by 8 percentage points. We know what happened in 2000. It was a statistical tie. In 2004 Bush won by 2.5 percentage points. In 2008 Obama won by 7 percentage points. In 2012 Obama won by 4 percentage points. Of these years the ones that could be reasonably classified as popular landslides are 1980 and 1984. Electoral is a different story. 1980, 1984, 1988 were historical landslides comparable to the 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1964 and 1972 elections. Obama's don't come close to this. His election in 2008 was extremely comfortable. His re-election was close though not as cloe as Bush's re-election. Note of the four president's re-elected in the years I cover here, Obama is the only one whose popular vote went down, and it went down by a lot, three full percentage points.

 

____________________

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4733
(4739 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/8/2014 at 01:24 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
The results of the poll are a fair representation of American voters.



There are nearly 320 million people in the United States.

You actually think a sample size of 1446 can accurately and fairly represent 320 million people?!?

Wow. I'm gob smacked by your naiveté.




Do you entirely reject the use of polling to reflect current public opinion? Because the politicans sure don't. They spend millions on their own internal polls. Or do you only reject it when it says what you don't like.


Interesting comment. Isn't that exactly what you did in the presidential election of 2012? I remember bantering with you on this very point. Didn't you claim that the polls would be proven wrong (I'm guessing) because you were against Obama?


I never said the polls were inaccurate. I said they would not prove to be true come election day. I was wrong. Never for one second did I say that a scientific sampling of public opinion was inaccurate because it only questions a small number of people. That is what you seem to be doing. There are lots of a reasons a poll might be inaccurate and obviously when predicting what action people will actually take going forward it can be even more inaccurate. But your rejection appears to be due to the sample size which would essentially reject any and all polls since by definition they take a statistical sample.


I'll answer your later point first where you said, "But your rejection appears to be due to the sample size which would essentially reject any and all polls since by definition they take a statistical sample." Really, Doug...go back and read my post from 07/05 in this thread where I stated in response to someone else, “Although I disagree with several of the comments you’ve made in this thread, I do agree with you on the sampling size concept. This poll is a reasonable size. It along with most other polls would have a plus & minus factor for its results”. So, you must be confused or confusing me with someone else.

As far as your first few lines where you stated, "I never said the polls were inaccurate. I said they would not prove to be true come election day. I was wrong." Well, I think you're parsing words here. That's a fine line you're walking. I'd have to go back into the vaults from almost 2 years ago and find your exact wording, but either way you were dismissive regardless of the terminology you want to throw after the fact.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/8/2014 at 09:08 PM
Just one more example of Democrats cheapening and watering down the true meaning of words......Racist, extremist, landslide...
 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5032
(5027 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/9/2014 at 06:40 PM
quote:
We know what happened in 2000. It was a statistical tie. In 2004 Bush won by 2.5 percentage points. In 2008 Obama won by 7 percentage points. In 2012 Obama won by 4 percentage points.


Maybe in the grand scheme of things in overall US history, it was not a landslide. But according to these numbers above, he sure laid a whoopin on W's numbers.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/10/2014 at 12:21 PM
Maybe in the grand scheme of things in overall US history, it was not a landslide. But according to these numbers above, he sure laid a whoopin on W's numbers.



Even though I predicted that Obama would win, I thought it would be a little closer. But Obama was able to better utilize the internet/social media to lure a the low-information type that wouldn't normally vote, but wanted to vote for a "celebrity."





[Edited on 7/10/2014 by alloak41]

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/10/2014 at 12:29 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
The results of the poll are a fair representation of American voters.



There are nearly 320 million people in the United States.

You actually think a sample size of 1446 can accurately and fairly represent 320 million people?!?

Wow. I'm gob smacked by your naiveté.




Do you entirely reject the use of polling to reflect current public opinion? Because the politicans sure don't. They spend millions on their own internal polls. Or do you only reject it when it says what you don't like.


Interesting comment. Isn't that exactly what you did in the presidential election of 2012? I remember bantering with you on this very point. Didn't you claim that the polls would be proven wrong (I'm guessing) because you were against Obama?


I never said the polls were inaccurate. I said they would not prove to be true come election day. I was wrong. Never for one second did I say that a scientific sampling of public opinion was inaccurate because it only questions a small number of people. That is what you seem to be doing. There are lots of a reasons a poll might be inaccurate and obviously when predicting what action people will actually take going forward it can be even more inaccurate. But your rejection appears to be due to the sample size which would essentially reject any and all polls since by definition they take a statistical sample.


I'll answer your later point first where you said, "But your rejection appears to be due to the sample size which would essentially reject any and all polls since by definition they take a statistical sample." Really, Doug...go back and read my post from 07/05 in this thread where I stated in response to someone else, “Although I disagree with several of the comments you’ve made in this thread, I do agree with you on the sampling size concept. This poll is a reasonable size. It along with most other polls would have a plus & minus factor for its results”. So, you must be confused or confusing me with someone else.

As far as your first few lines where you stated, "I never said the polls were inaccurate. I said they would not prove to be true come election day. I was wrong." Well, I think you're parsing words here. That's a fine line you're walking. I'd have to go back into the vaults from almost 2 years ago and find your exact wording, but either way you were dismissive regardless of the terminology you want to throw after the fact.


I may be confusing you with someone else. I don't feel like going back and checking who in this thread attacked a sampling of only 1,000 people. As for my statement, I don't think it's parsing. I felt that the polls, while accurately reflecting opinion at that point would not represent the result of the election weeks later. As I said I was wrong. But there is a big difference between that and saying "How can you only ask 1,000 people and have that mean anything?"

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/10/2014 at 12:45 PM
quote:
quote:
We know what happened in 2000. It was a statistical tie. In 2004 Bush won by 2.5 percentage points. In 2008 Obama won by 7 percentage points. In 2012 Obama won by 4 percentage points.


Maybe in the grand scheme of things in overall US history, it was not a landslide. But according to these numbers above, he sure laid a whoopin on W's numbers.



That doesn't make it a landslide by any definition of the word. Words have meaning.

 

____________________

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4733
(4739 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/10/2014 at 12:46 PM
quote:
Maybe in the grand scheme of things in overall US history, it was not a landslide. But according to these numbers above, he sure laid a whoopin on W's numbers.



Even though I predicted that Obama would win, I thought it would be a little closer. But Obama was able to better utilize the internet/social media to lure a the low-information type that wouldn't normally vote, but wanted to vote for a "celebrity."

[Edited on 7/10/2014 by alloak41]


Ah...the "low information type" comment coming from you. It's good to see you're digging into that deep bag of reasoning & coming up with something fresh & new.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12503
(12493 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/10/2014 at 04:41 PM
quote:
Maybe in the grand scheme of things in overall US history, it was not a landslide. But according to these numbers above, he sure laid a whoopin on W's numbers.



Even though I predicted that Obama would win, I thought it would be a little closer. But Obama was able to better utilize the internet/social media to lure a the low-information type that wouldn't normally vote, but wanted to vote for a "celebrity."

If this were posted by anyone else, I would have assumed it was a joke and laughed.

 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4619
(4617 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/10/2014 at 07:44 PM
quote:
quote:
Maybe in the grand scheme of things in overall US history, it was not a landslide. But according to these numbers above, he sure laid a whoopin on W's numbers.



Even though I predicted that Obama would win, I thought it would be a little closer. But Obama was able to better utilize the internet/social media to lure a the low-information type that wouldn't normally vote, but wanted to vote for a "celebrity."

If this were posted by anyone else, I would have assumed it was a joke and laughed.



I'm confussed. Low-information type? celebrity? When did Sarah Palin enter this discussion?

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11061
(11060 all sites)
Registered: 8/16/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/10/2014 at 08:01 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
Maybe in the grand scheme of things in overall US history, it was not a landslide. But according to these numbers above, he sure laid a whoopin on W's numbers.



Even though I predicted that Obama would win, I thought it would be a little closer. But Obama was able to better utilize the internet/social media to lure a the low-information type that wouldn't normally vote, but wanted to vote for a "celebrity."

If this were posted by anyone else, I would have assumed it was a joke and laughed.



I'm confussed. Low-information type? celebrity? When did Sarah Palin enter this discussion?

 

____________________
John Lewis was a great American, big venus, not so much.

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3373
(3372 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/10/2014 at 08:47 PM
Now available in black:



 

____________________

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11061
(11060 all sites)
Registered: 8/16/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/10/2014 at 09:32 PM
Carter is an admirable man, a class act [unlike ronnie reagan, hw bush and dumbya]

 

____________________
John Lewis was a great American, big venus, not so much.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8271
(8271 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/10/2014 at 09:43 PM
What a great picture of JC Goober. Thanks!

That is a man I really admire. He has done so much for so many both here and around the world.

A real American Hero.

And an Allman Brothers fan.

 

____________________
Capitalism will always survive, because socialism will be there to save it.

Ralph Nader's Father


 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 10688
(10713 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/10/2014 at 10:35 PM
Something that I think about and I'd like you to comment...the vast expansion in the US oil and gas production and the vast job growth seen in this field, the economic and hiring effect from this industry is very substantial.




Of course that chart does not show public sector employment. So I ask your opinion...the private sector job growth we have seen is it happening in spite of Obama's policies or because of them and can you support your position? We know that he never meant what he said on supporting coal from the 2008 election, but we don't have expanded oil and gas production as a staple of the Democrat party either. Imagine if there was a emphasis on say creating a competitive transportation fuel for gasoline/diesel that can actually move the vehicles on our roads that matter, the heavy vehicles that transport the products our country needs. That fuel is natural gas. Nothing wrong with electric cars, but your delivery trucks aren't going to be running on electric any time soon.

All of this expansion in an industry that some would rather see shrinking rather than growing, but it is growing and contributing to the job numbers of our country. What if the environmentalists had their way and US wasn't king of natural gas and didn't nearly double our oil production in the last several yaers? What do you think the job growth numbers would be? That chart from the EIA implies they'd be very underwhelming. Job growth on Obama's watch..to his credit or just right place right time?

[Edited on 7/11/2014 by nebish]

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/10/2014 at 11:17 PM
quote:
quote:
Maybe in the grand scheme of things in overall US history, it was not a landslide. But according to these numbers above, he sure laid a whoopin on W's numbers.



Even though I predicted that Obama would win, I thought it would be a little closer. But Obama was able to better utilize the internet/social media to lure a the low-information type that wouldn't normally vote, but wanted to vote for a "celebrity."

If this were posted by anyone else, I would have assumed it was a joke and laughed.



Sure you would..

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/glossaryterms/a/Who-Are-The-Low-Informa tion-Voters.htm

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11061
(11060 all sites)
Registered: 8/16/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/11/2014 at 12:35 AM
How about idiots who get their "news" from Facebook right wing news feed?, or fox, or am hate radio? those who make 9 bucks an hour, are on food stamps, get their health care from [state access] and are anti- union and vote republican cause rushbo told em too. these are the informed geniuses among us right?.

 

____________________
John Lewis was a great American, big venus, not so much.

 
<<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com