I take it you've never tried Pecan Lodge in Dallas, or Franklin's in Austin?
If he had, he'd prolly be cured of his foot-in-mouth disease.
Pecan Lodge...started in shed 2, landed in deep ellum...poised to take over the world!
Really... and all the election polls were accurate? http://www.yourememberthat.com...
Nobody said ALL the election polls were accurate. YOU are the one who said:
"...look election polls prior to the election. They very rarely match up with the actual election. Why is that?"
How many times are you going to point to a SINGLE instance where the polls were wrong? Do you honestly think anyone reading this exchange is is as retarded as you are? The fact is, polls very rarely get elections results wrong. Exactly the opposite of your unbelievably ignorant claim.
Election polls are frequently wrong.
What the fuck does "frequently" mean? Your position is that polls "very rarely match up with the actual election." FACTS disagree with you.
The republicans in 2012 thought they were going to win as I remember.
What the Republicans thought in 2012 has shit to do with the historic accuracy of polls. That Gallup got it wrong in the 2012 presidential election doesn't change the fact that Gallup got it right 85% of the time.
There is so much evidence that you're choking on stupidity: http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
I thought you eschewed the validity of citations. Are you sure you want to bring them back into the argument? Why don't you show me some historical data confirming polls "very rarely match up with the actual election."
Your argument would require that the polls all agree with each other... but they don't.
Uh, yeah, more often than not they do. Your argument is that polls are rarely accurate. I have provided DATA nullifying your claim. The best you can do is shit out cherry-picked data.
Continue to make a fool out of yourself. I'd say it's giving me a hard-on, but homo-eroticism is your specialty.
As to the notion that you can retain accuracy with 9 percent response rates [blah blah blah]...
What a sad sad person your are. I don't have any notions about accuracy/response rates.
What I do have is polling DATA from every fucking national election since 1936. You claim election polls "very rarely match up with the actual election". I show you a 85% success rate, and you still cling to your ridiculous position.
I guess the fact that conducting polls is an activity of *every* *single* *election* campaign (that can afford them) in the US and elsewhere escapes you. All these politicians spending campaign resources conducting polls are just fooling themselves, because, according to you, polls are worthless.
In your next response, you might consider avoiding yet another attempt at misdirection. Seriously. Using this tactic once is bad enough. Using it over and over and over just makes you look even more brainless.
But hey, continue dancing around in a circle with one hand clasped to the other. Isn't that what retards do?
Are you channeling more of your stupidity from beyond the grave? Alright... I'll link hands with some people and I'll invite you into our circle, spirit...
First you'll have to find some people who as out of touch with reality as you are. You can't make a circle when you're alone.
As to poll response rates not making them less accurate... it does make them less precise though.
You've completely lost it. Synonyms...have you heard of them?
But go ahead and waste more time trying to split hairs with semantics. Poll response rates aren't the issue here. The track record of election polls is what's under debate. Since you are yet again trying to divert attention away from your initial position, let me remind you of it ONE MORE TIME:
"...look election polls prior to the election. They very rarely match up with the actual election. Why is that?"
Why do you continually try to avoid addressing this claim directly? Oh yeah, it's an indefensible position.
And lets talk further about how these are telephone polls and they don't poll cellphones.
O boy, can we?!? I SO want to talk further about something that has zip zilch squat to do with your original position. Your obvious and clumsy attempts at misdirection are becoming tiresome.
Do you want to know the last time I owned a land line phone?
No.
And I'm supposed to respect any of it? Sorry... I'm not one of the peasants your lot bamboozles with this stupidity.
The only thing people around here expect you to respect are facts. Here's a fun fact: Gallup has successfully predicted the results of 17 of the last 20 presidential elections. Pew has a similar track record. If you want to continue to argue that an 85% success rate equals "very rarely" matching up "with the actual election", I'm here for you. I am more than happy for you to continue to embarrass yourself in front of anyone reading this exchange.
I cited many examples of people talking about poll inaccuracy.
I don't give the smallest fuck over your many irrelevant citations. I'm simply telling you that your claim about how election polls "very rarely match up with the actual election" is complete horseshit.
Election polls in the US have a long track record of accuracy going back DECADES. The fact that you refuse to recognize this - even when you're pimp-slapped with actual data - just shows how utterly out of touch you are with reality.
As to opinion polls, actually the topic is about Pew Opinion poll.
No you pinhead, the topic at hand is your statement:
Why do you have to constantly be reminded of your dimwitted remark? I guess if I were you, I would want to forget about it too. After all, the only thing dumber than saying it would be defending it...oh wait.
Kill yourself. No really. Put down the keyboard. Get up. And stop wasting oxygen.
What a childish little twat you are.
As to ignorance regarding poll participation... You really did zero research in your short life didn't you?
Yes, poll response rates are falling. Yes, declining rates can introduce selection bias. I guess it's a good thing I didn't claim otherwise.
But declining response rates don't automatically cause a poll to be inaccurate. How do I know that? Because the SECOND FUCKING PARAGRAPH of your huffpo article reads:
"Yet the study also finds evidence that on most of the wide variety of measures tested, the declining response rates alone are not causing surveys to yield inaccurate results."
Talk about doing ZERO research. Protip: read through an article BEFORE claiming it supports your position.
What a pitiful display. Your ability to embarrass yourself with a constant flow of ignorant, self-contradictory statements is simply breathtaking. And your multiple sorry ass attempts to move the discussion away from your original statement isn't going well for you. Apparently you are oblivious to that fact.
The world is better place now that you're gone. There is one less moron.
I'm not going anywhere, nimrod. I've got lots of free time to help you continue to humiliate yourself.
Really, there's a legitimate argument here that Iran's nuclear program hasn't been a good idea in the long run, even when you consider the political power that comes with being nuclear armed. But you're just so over the top and blinded to the reality of the situation that I had to say something. Ease up on the kool-aid or you might get fooled into thinking the next pointless war is going to pay itself off in 3 months.
You've fought the good fight. But unfortunately, Karmashock is a loser with no life who spends all day pumping the internet full of long winded falsehoods. The only way to defeat him is to quit your job and go full time. But even then you will have a tough time keeping up with the manic pace of his illogical posts.
I nominate you for a Saint Jude medal.
I'm not trying to be cheeky but I don't understand why we still use the word 'atomic'. I thought we decided 'nuclear' was a better choice because all bombs can be said to be 'atomic' in nature.
You're asking the wrong idiot. Karmashock pronounces it "new cue lar".
How do you know this, for a fact? The planet Earth could remain "lucky" for the rest of the life of the solar system.
Remain lucky? You've got to be kidding. The Earth has never been lucky. Giant space rocks have been hitting the Earth on a regular basis since it came into existence. What makes you think that will somehow magically change? Have we run out of asteroids already? The chance that the Earth will never again be hit by a large extraterrestrial body is so infinitesimal, that for all practical purposes it is zero.
So yes, it is inevitable that another giant space rock is going to fall out of the sky at some point.
Knowing of the risk of an asteroid impact during the 1600s, would you ask that they devote considerable resources to prevention?
What do you mean by "considerable"? Would 1% of one year's worth of the world's economic output in the 1600s be "considerable" in your mind? Does 1% meet your definition of "massive amounts of resources"?
Today, Gross World Product is currently around 75 trillion dollars per year. Let's say the cost to build and test an asteroid defense system is two billion dollars over ten years, or two hundred million dollars per year. Two hundred million dollars is what, 0.0002857% of yearly GWP? Have I got that right? Someone better check my math on that.
Assuming my math is correct, do you really think 0.0002857% of the world's economy for ten years would be so damaging that it would cause hardship for...well, anyone?
I can't think of a greater coward in military service than a drone pilot. Except maybe an ICBM crew.
You have a strange definition of coward".
Just because someone is in a military role that doesn't expose them to enemy fire doesn't make that person a coward. By your definition, every military force on earth has a large proportion of cowards in their service.
Humanity would live through a similar impact today.
Ah, an optimist. Nothing wrong with hoping for the best, but it's foolish not to plan for the worst.
The survival of humanity is not the same as the survival of human civilization. Doing nothing may not cause human extinction, but it will certainly expose our civilization to great risk. And in this case, being prepared for the worst is a relatively low cost proposition when compared to the cost of re-building civilization from scratch.
I just take reasonable precautions.
That's the difference between a rational fear and an irrational fear.
what reasonable precautions are we taking?
Scanning the sky. But not building large-enough rockets.
What makes you think that our current rockets aren't big enough, and what makes you think we're not currently building bigger ones?
In any event, you seem to think we're currently taking at least *one* reasonable precaution (scanning the sky). How many more precautions do we have to take before you'll no longer consider asteroid strikes to be "Yet Another Irrational Fear"? When we reach your magic number, would you then consider it appropriate to devote public money to the effort?
Very well... keep in mind that I'm arguing with like 20 people in this thread and you're apparently literally the only one that hasn't taken a side one way or the other.
I do try to avoid politically charged discussions, although I am sucked into them every once in a while. : )
and it is my position that the paper how many ever phases it has... is bullshit.
I certainly won't disagree with you on that point.
Cheers!
""I'm so very glad you pointed this out, because it perfectly illustrates why you should be reading, at a minimum, the paper's abstract: [iop.org] ""
quote from you. You're arguing his paper is not full of shit.
Sigh.
First, I was simply providing an example in support of Namarrgon's admonition to review source documents rather than strictly relying on popular media sources.
Second, I used the Cook abstract because it contained a citation YOU ASKED FOR.
Third, how anyone can claim with a straight face that this sentence: "I'm so very glad you pointed this out, because it perfectly illustrates why you should be reading, at a minimum, the paper's abstract:" represents an endorsement of the paper's conclusions is beyond me.
Perhaps your little break from this discussion wasn't long enough, because you're still not thinking very clearly.
you're defending cook's paper
LOL, please quote what I said in support of Cook's paper.
so...yes.
so...yes..you're taking a break? That's probably a good idea.
Your paper is bullshit.
Is this supposed to be a reply to my post? I'm not defending any paper, I've not called anyone a "denier", and I don't care about someone's paper that wasn't accepted.
What I am doing is calling into question the claims of the author of the Forbes piece you cited.
I'm also challenging your apparent contempt for peer review. If there's a better way to get good science, you haven't identified it.
I'm also calling you out on your insinuation that scientific misconduct/fraud/sloppiness/whatever is rampant in climate science.
Finally, I'm supporting poster Namarrgon's advise on citing source documents whenever possible - instead of citing sources that have such a low signal to noise ratio, it's difficult to get to the underlying science.
What your incoherent ramblings above have to do with anything I've said is beyond me. Maybe you should take a break for a while.
One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis
