Global Warming is over.

[CorvallisBMW]

On a similar note, climate and weather science is beginning to prove that the Egyptian civilization is much older than we've been taught. Thousands or even tens of thousands older.
So get ready to burn all your history books.

lolwut

[rwh11385]

lolwut

I dunno. Maybe he forgets that it is usually only the skeptics that would be shocked the world is older than 6000 years old. Of course, there are some deniers of that too. I've had people complain that carbon dating is bullshit science too...

[Fusion]

Seems like you forgot about the dinosaur farts. That a bit more than 6000 years.
The Sphinx in Giza is believed to be made in 2500bc. Dating it to 10000bc or older basically changes everything we've learned about the history of human civilizations.

[rwh11385]

Seems like you forgot about the dinosaur farts. That a bit more than 6000 years.
The Sphinx in Giza is believed to be made in 2500bc. Dating it to 10000bc or older basically changes everything we've learned about the history of human civilizations.

Apparently you are not very familiar with American GOP party... yet keep trying to act relevant to our political discussion. The majority of Republicans don't believe the world existed 10,000 bc. Some of the same people don't believe fossils exist, or were just placed there, or that Creationism should be taught as science. And these same people are the global warming deniers.

http://publicreligion.org/research/2011/09/climate-change-evolution-2012/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx

But "Young Creationists" decrease with education, so therefore it must be academic indoctrination that are brain washing them to believe the world is older than they read originally.




If there is evidence that Egyptians predated what we had assumed they existed during, cool, I'm all for learning and truth. But not a lot of people are in America - as demonstrated by the anti-science stance of most GOP supporters.

[Fusion]

Oh stunning information you have there. Now you're going to go around claiming something fact because you think half your fellow citizens are idiots?

For results based on the sample of –534—national adults in Form A and –490—national adults in Form B, the maximum margins of sampling error are ±5 percentage points.

Interviews were conducted among a random sample of 1,013 adults 18 years of age or older in the continental United States (301 respondents were interviewed on a cell phone).

Since you have a percentage fetish, that's 0.00032216003053046687% of the population

[nando]

somebody failed statistics 101

[rwh11385]

Oh stunning information you have there. Now you're going to go around claiming something fact because you think half your fellow citizens are idiots?




Since you have a percentage fetish, that's 0.00032216003053046687% of the population

Ha. Dude, seriously? You're now trying to argue against the Gallup polling, or the practice of polling itself and random sample sizes?

somebody failed statistics 101

True story. Or never took it...

But at least he points out how ridiculous those people are about numbers, science, math, etc.

[nando]

it's almost as if the more extreme right leaning you are the less educated you are.

My mom is in that tea party group.. :(

[Fusion]

somebody failed statistics 101

explain

[nando]

random samples = you don't need as many samples to create an accurate poll

1000 samples is more than enough for 90+% accuracy. hell, they even tell you what the margin of error is - 5%.

I know it's hard to believe but even though everyone thinks they're a unique little flower, you can actually predict quite accurately what most people think from a much smaller subset if the sample is random.

[rwh11385]

explain

Like he said, this is the most basic principle of statistics and included in every introductory course about it. Anyone who has even a tiny bit of knowledge about statistics or polling would not have made the ignorant objection that you did.

http://www.publicagenda.org/pages/be...d-margin-error

The bigger the sample, the smaller the margin of error, but once you get past a certain point -- say, a sample size of 800 or 1,000 — the improvement is very small. The results of a survey of 300 people will likely be correct within 6 percentage points, while a survey of 1,000 will be correct within 3 percentage points, a lower margin of error. But that is where the dramatic differences end — when a sample is increased to 2,000 respondents, the margin of error drops only slightly, to 2 percentage points.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/101872/how-does-gallup-polling-work.aspx

When respondents to be interviewed are selected at random, every adult has an equal probability of falling into the sample. The typical sample size for a Gallup poll, either a traditional stand-alone poll or one night's interviewing from Gallup's Daily tracking, is 1,000 national adults with a margin of error of ±4 percentage points. Gallup's Daily tracking process now allows Gallup analysts to aggregate larger groups of interviews for more detailed subgroup analysis. But the accuracy of the estimates derived only marginally improves with larger sample sizes.

That fact that you don't know this, or questioned the validity of either poll which clearly stated the confidence interval shows again you are absolutely clueless.

[Fusion]

That's not the point, I added that cute number to make voltlover's groin itch.
Using a gallup poll as an argument to back up something you believe in because your narcicism makes you think you're never wrong, that's retarded.

[rwh11385]

it's almost as if the more extreme right leaning you are the less educated you are.

My mom is in that tea party group.. :(

Yeah, it seems that way, doesn't it? Especially the few around here. But statistical profile isn't much different from the general population:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/tea-partiers-fairly-mainstream-demographics.aspx

It's a wash with sampling error. Maybe it's just a result of letting desired conclusions dictate source selection, or choosing to be close-minded and ignorant rather than lacking of ability.

[rwh11385]

That's not the point, I added that cute number to make voltlover's groin itch.
Using a gallup poll as an argument to back up something you believe in because your narcicism makes you think you're never wrong, that's retarded.

Oh no, you have clearly offended or upset me by again demonstrating how little you understand, yet want to argue against it.


The original point was that your trying to shock people about the difference in time periods for the Egyptians would only generally offend the people on your denier side. The Gallup polls and other data backed up the correlation between global warming skepticism and young earth creationism beliefs.

But the subsequent one was that you again demonstrated you talk shit about things you have no understanding of. You being oblivious of basic, general knowledge make you unaware that you don't have the foundation necessary to engage in any bit of an informed discussion.

[Fusion]

But the point before that point before that one was that scientists can agree all they want (ie. Sphinx date), but also be proven wrong by those who are sceptical or have a different angle of opinion. That does not mean that everything a scientist claims is wrong, it means that no right is given to you and you alarmist buddies to claim something "proven", "concluded", and to label everyone else brainwashed idiots.
Hell, even through all my doubt, maybe that Jesus figure will show up one day. Who knows?

But I could give two bagels with diarrhea filling about what you think. It's people like you who pull this crap into legislation all over the world and create stupid laws and regulations.