[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Majority Press Release U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works Contact: MARC MORANO 202-224-5762, MATT DEMPSEY 202-224-9797 From TalkingPointsMemo.com: Until a couple months ago, the [writer of this press release], Marc Marono, worked for [the very right-wing] CNSnews.com where he distinguished himself by using disgraced NASA crony George Deutsch to attack NASA scientist James Hansen. Deutsch...was the young Bush campaign flack who was sent over to NASA to censor scientific publications, made a splash when he instructed NASA scientists not to discuss the Big Bang without considering the topic from a religious perspective and then got bounced when it emerged that he'd lied about having a college degree. Earlier, Marono wrote [an article for CNSnews.com] questioning whether Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) may have faked the wounds for which he received two Purple Hearts. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008860.php (CNSNews.com is an extremely right-wing news site whose parent organization is the equally right-wing Media Research Center, both founded by right-wing zealot Brent Bozell III.) AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE'S MOVIE snip Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
Another one of Shemp's unimpeachable sources. Sal On Jun 28, 2006, at 8:31 AM, authfriend wrote: Until a couple months ago, the [writer of this press release], Marc Marono, worked for [the very right-wing] CNSnews.com where he distinguished himself by using disgraced NASA crony George Deutsch to attack NASA scientist James Hansen. Deutsch...was the young Bush campaign flack who was sent over to NASA to censor scientific publications
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Majority Press Release U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works Contact: MARC MORANO 202-224-5762, MATT DEMPSEY 202-224-9797 From TalkingPointsMemo.com: Until a couple months ago, the [writer of this press release], Marc Marono, worked for [the very right-wing] CNSnews.com where he distinguished himself by using disgraced NASA crony George Deutsch to attack NASA scientist James Hansen. Deutsch...was the young Bush campaign flack who was sent over to NASA to censor scientific publications, made a splash when he instructed NASA scientists not to discuss the Big Bang without considering the topic from a religious perspective and then got bounced when it emerged that he'd lied about having a college degree. Earlier, Marono wrote [an article for CNSnews.com] questioning whether Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) may have faked the wounds for which he received two Purple Hearts. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008860.php (CNSNews.com is an extremely right-wing news site whose parent organization is the equally right-wing Media Research Center, both founded by right-wing zealot Brent Bozell III.) AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE'S MOVIE snip Its good to know Mr. Marono's background (and I refrain from obvious jokes based on his name -- because that would be insensitive and rude :) ). And knowing his prior efforts of slanting and censorship motivates the reader to be extra careful in reading his current material. Some might jump to the conclusion that his past makes his present statements necessarily false (and for the record Judy did not say this, or imply that she had made such a jump). To say ones past makes their present statements necessarily false is a logical fallacy. Current statements must be refuted or accepted on their own merits. However, a poor track record for a person's past statements may raise red flags and motivate us to look more deeply. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Majority Press Release U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works Contact: MARC MORANO 202-224-5762, MATT DEMPSEY 202-224-9797 From TalkingPointsMemo.com: Until a couple months ago, the [writer of this press release], Marc Marono, worked for [the very right-wing] CNSnews.com where he distinguished himself by using disgraced NASA crony George Deutsch to attack NASA scientist James Hansen. Deutsch...was the young Bush campaign flack who was sent over to NASA to censor scientific publications, made a splash when he instructed NASA scientists not to discuss the Big Bang without considering the topic from a religious perspective and then got bounced when it emerged that he'd lied about having a college degree. Earlier, Marono wrote [an article for CNSnews.com] questioning whether Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) may have faked the wounds for which he received two Purple Hearts. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008860.php (CNSNews.com is an extremely right-wing news site whose parent organization is the equally right-wing Media Research Center, both founded by right-wing zealot Brent Bozell III.) AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE'S MOVIE snip Here's the article in question, Billie: http://tinyurl.com/hmron I, for one, would indeed like to know what the nation's top scientists thought of the movie...not JUST the 19 of 100 contacted who had seen the movie or read the book. Wouldn't you? AND I'd like to know what the other 81 thought. Wouldn't you? AND I'd like to know how AP justifies the lead paragraph of the article -- The nation's top climate scientists are giving 'An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy -- when the next paragraph tells us that only 19 of 100 contacted were in a position to even say such a thing. Tell me, Billie, do you think that was proper or fair of AP to lead with such a paragraph? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
The fact that Marono is a shill for entrenched interests is revealing, but that fact alone doesn't necessarily discredit his citations. They seem to do that on their own. For example, Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, says in his Wall Street Journal op-ed piece: A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. In fact, Gore spends a lot of time reviewing the dynamic nature of climate, all to the purpose of showing how strongly recent trends depart from anything seen in hundreds of thousands of years. It seems that Lindzen's critique assiduously ignores what Gore is really saying. Marono also cites Last week's National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann's often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. But Gore shows how those temperature anomalies are nowhere close to being as dramatic as what we're undergoing now. I don't see, looking at a graph of the data, how the hockey stick graph has been discredited. Upon close examination, the critics Marono cites sound like the carping I see in newsgroups a lot, when a critic tries to discredit an entire argument by picking at a loose thread here or there. --- authfriend posted: From TalkingPointsMemo.com: Until a couple months ago, the [writer of this press release], Marc Marono, worked for [the very right-wing] CNSnews.com where he distinguished himself by using disgraced NASA crony George Deutsch to attack NASA scientist James Hansen. Deutsch...was the young Bush campaign flack who was sent over to NASA to censor scientific publications, made a splash when he instructed NASA scientists not to discuss the Big Bang without considering the topic from a religious perspective and then got bounced when it emerged that he'd lied about having a college degree. Earlier, Marono wrote [an article for CNSnews.com] questioning whether Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) may have faked the wounds for which he received two Purple Hearts. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008860.php (CNSNews.com is an extremely right-wing news site whose parent organization is the equally right-wing Media Research Center, both founded by right-wing zealot Brent Bozell III.) AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE'S MOVIE snip Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- shempmcgurk wrote: Here's the article in question, Billie: http://tinyurl.com/hmron I, for one, would indeed like to know what the nation's top scientists thought of the movie...not JUST the 19 of 100 contacted who had seen the movie or read the book. Wouldn't you? Thanks for the link. I got the impression the article only gathered impressions from those who had seen the movie. Those who have seen it had the same general impression... Many had not seen the movie, hence, I would surmise, the relatively low number of citations vs. contacts. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Majority Press Release U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works Contact: MARC MORANO 202-224-5762, MATT DEMPSEY 202-224-9797 From TalkingPointsMemo.com: Until a couple months ago, the [writer of this press release], Marc Marono, worked for [the very right-wing] CNSnews.com where he distinguished himself by using disgraced NASA crony George Deutsch to attack NASA scientist James Hansen. Deutsch...was the young Bush campaign flack who was sent over to NASA to censor scientific publications, made a splash when he instructed NASA scientists not to discuss the Big Bang without considering the topic from a religious perspective and then got bounced when it emerged that he'd lied about having a college degree. Earlier, Marono wrote [an article for CNSnews.com] questioning whether Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) may have faked the wounds for which he received two Purple Hearts. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008860.php (CNSNews.com is an extremely right-wing news site whose parent organization is the equally right-wing Media Research Center, both founded by right-wing zealot Brent Bozell III.) AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE'S MOVIE snip Here's the article in question, Billie: Thank you, this is the AP article from which I already posted a lengthy quote, along with the URL. Guess you must have missed it, huh? http://tinyurl.com/hmron I, for one, would indeed like to know what the nation's top scientists thought of the movie...not JUST the 19 of 100 contacted who had seen the movie or read the book. Wouldn't you? Not interested in what those who *haven't* seen the movie or read the book think, actually (most of those the AP contacted). The 19 who gave their opinions to AP had all seen the movie or read the book. AND I'd like to know what the other 81 thought. Wouldn't you? See above. AND I'd like to know how AP justifies the lead paragraph of the article -- The nation's top climate scientists are giving 'An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy -- when the next paragraph tells us that only 19 of 100 contacted were in a position to even say such a thing. I don't believe it says ALL the nation's top climate scientists..., does it now? Tell me, Billie, do you think that was proper or fair of AP to lead with such a paragraph? Unquestionably, as long as all 19 who responded to the AP are legitimately considered to be among the nation's top climate scientists. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- shempmcgurk wrote: Here's the article in question, Billie: http://tinyurl.com/hmron I, for one, would indeed like to know what the nation's top scientists thought of the movie...not JUST the 19 of 100 contacted who had seen the movie or read the book. Wouldn't you? Thanks for the link. I got the impression the article only gathered impressions from those who had seen the movie. Those who have seen it had the same general impression... Many had not seen the movie, hence, I would surmise, the relatively low number of citations vs. contacts. In light of the fact that only 19 of 100 contacted had seen the movie, do you think it was fair of the AP to lead with: The nation's top climate scientists are giving 'An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy. ? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- shempmcgurk wrote: Here's the article in question, Billie: http://tinyurl.com/hmron I, for one, would indeed like to know what the nation's top scientists thought of the movie...not JUST the 19 of 100 contacted who had seen the movie or read the book. Wouldn't you? Thanks for the link. Did my earlier post quoting the same article and providing a link to it not get posted? It did appear on the Web site, but neither you nor Shemp appears to have seen it. I got the impression the article only gathered impressions from those who had seen the movie. Seen the movie and/or read the book, that's correct. Those who have seen it had the same general impression... Many had not seen the movie, hence, I would surmise, the relatively low number of citations vs. contacts. Precisely. AP said explicitly that *most* of those they contacted had neither seen the movie nor read the book. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another one of Shemp's unimpeachable sources. ...and you, Salvatore, are simply peachy... Sal On Jun 28, 2006, at 8:31 AM, authfriend wrote: Until a couple months ago, the [writer of this press release], Marc Marono, worked for [the very right-wing] CNSnews.com where he distinguished himself by using disgraced NASA crony George Deutsch to attack NASA scientist James Hansen. Deutsch...was the young Bush campaign flack who was sent over to NASA to censor scientific publications Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: --- shempmcgurk wrote: Here's the article in question, Billie: http://tinyurl.com/hmron I, for one, would indeed like to know what the nation's top scientists thought of the movie...not JUST the 19 of 100 contacted who had seen the movie or read the book. Wouldn't you? Thanks for the link. I got the impression the article only gathered impressions from those who had seen the movie. Those who have seen it had the same general impression... Many had not seen the movie, hence, I would surmise, the relatively low number of citations vs. contacts. In light of the fact that only 19 of 100 contacted had seen the movie, do you think it was fair of the AP to lead with: The nation's top climate scientists are giving 'An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy. ? Some of the nation's top climate scientists who haven't seen Al Gore's documentary are giving it low marks for accuracy. Would that work better for you, Shemp? In other words: If you're giving a movie or a book marks for accuracy, it's *assumed* that you're among those who have seen the movie or read the book. AP could have written: Of the nation's top 100 climate scientists who have seen Al Gore's documentary, all give it five stars for accuracy. Of course, that's what it *did* say if you read beyond the first two paragraphs. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Majority Press Release U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works Contact: MARC MORANO 202-224-5762, MATT DEMPSEY 202-224-9797 snip AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE'S MOVIE snip AND I'd like to know how AP justifies the lead paragraph of the article -- The nation's top climate scientists are giving 'An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy -- when the next paragraph tells us that only 19 of 100 contacted were in a position to even say such a thing. Tell me, Billie, do you think that was proper or fair of AP to lead with such a paragraph? (Sometimes right-wing hypocrisy is *so* outrageous, it goes right by me.) Tell me, McGoo, do you think it was proper or fair of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works to give that title to its press release? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: --- shempmcgurk wrote: Here's the article in question, Billie: http://tinyurl.com/hmron I, for one, would indeed like to know what the nation's top scientists thought of the movie...not JUST the 19 of 100 contacted who had seen the movie or read the book. Wouldn't you? Thanks for the link. I got the impression the article only gathered impressions from those who had seen the movie. Those who have seen it had the same general impression... Many had not seen the movie, hence, I would surmise, the relatively low number of citations vs. contacts. In light of the fact that only 19 of 100 contacted had seen the movie, do you think it was fair of the AP to lead with: The nation's top climate scientists are giving 'An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy. ? Actually, quite emphatically yes. Actually a sample size of 19% is quite a substantial and meaningful sample. Often, quite valid samples, are 1% of the relevant population (sample space). Granted, this was sort of a backwards and not random sample. Its not the same as drawing a random sample of the 100 and having then go see the movie. Those 19 out of 100 who went to see the firm on their own might have some self-selective bias. Yet, 19/100 is such a large sample, this group of 19 (or a strong majority of it, say 12 of the 19, would apppear in a majority of all possible random samples of 19/100. Thus, its a pretty strong valid indicator of the views of the group. That is, the probablity of the views of the sample being very different than the views of the population is quite small. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: --- shempmcgurk wrote: Here's the article in question, Billie: http://tinyurl.com/hmron I, for one, would indeed like to know what the nation's top scientists thought of the movie...not JUST the 19 of 100 contacted who had seen the movie or read the book. Wouldn't you? Thanks for the link. I got the impression the article only gathered impressions from those who had seen the movie. Those who have seen it had the same general impression... Many had not seen the movie, hence, I would surmise, the relatively low number of citations vs. contacts. In light of the fact that only 19 of 100 contacted had seen the movie, do you think it was fair of the AP to lead with: The nation's top climate scientists are giving 'An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy. ? Actually, quite emphatically yes. Actually a sample size of 19% is quite a substantial and meaningful sample. Often, quite valid samples, are 1% of the relevant population (sample space). Granted, this was sort of a backwards and not random sample. Its not the same as drawing a random sample of the 100 and having then go see the movie. Those 19 out of 100 who went to see the firm on their own might have some self-selective bias. Yet, 19/100 is such a large sample, it sheer size most porbably overcomes potential self-selective bias. On an alternative track, I believe one could show that a significant portion of this group of 19 would apppear significantly in all possible random samples of 19/100. Either way, its a pretty strong valid indicator of the views of the group. That is, the probablity of the views of the sample being very different than the views of the population is small. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: --- shempmcgurk wrote: Here's the article in question, Billie: http://tinyurl.com/hmron I, for one, would indeed like to know what the nation's top scientists thought of the movie...not JUST the 19 of 100 contacted who had seen the movie or read the book. Wouldn't you? Thanks for the link. I got the impression the article only gathered impressions from those who had seen the movie. Those who have seen it had the same general impression... Many had not seen the movie, hence, I would surmise, the relatively low number of citations vs. contacts. In light of the fact that only 19 of 100 contacted had seen the movie, do you think it was fair of the AP to lead with: The nation's top climate scientists are giving 'An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy. ? Actually, quite emphatically yes. Actually a sample size of 19% is quite a substantial and meaningful sample. Often, quite valid samples, are 1% of the relevant population (sample space). Granted, this was sort of a backwards and not random sample. Its not the same as drawing a random sample of the 100 and having then go see the movie. Those 19 out of 100 who went to see the film on their own might have some self-selective bias. Yet, 19/100 is such a large sample, it sheer size most probably overcomes potential self-selective bias. On an alternative track, I believe one could show that a significant portion of this group of 19 would apppear significantly in all possible random samples of 19/100. Either way, its a pretty strong valid indicator of the views of the group. That is, the probablity of the views of the sample being very different than the views of the population is small. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
shempmcgurk wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- shempmcgurk wrote: Here's the article in question, Billie: http://tinyurl.com/hmron I, for one, would indeed like to know what the nation's top scientists thought of the movie...not JUST the 19 of 100 contacted who had seen the movie or read the book. Wouldn't you? Thanks for the link. I got the impression the article only gathered impressions from those who had seen the movie. Those who have seen it had the same general impression... Many had not seen the movie, hence, I would surmise, the relatively low number of citations vs. contacts. In light of the fact that only 19 of 100 contacted had seen the movie, do you think it was fair of the AP to lead with: The nation's top climate scientists are giving 'An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy. ? So Shemp, you've seen the film? I'm sure you wouldn't be one of these people criticizing without having seen it? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
shempmcgurk wrote: In light of the fact that only 19 of 100 contacted had seen the movie, do you think it was fair of the AP to lead with: The nation's top climate scientists are giving 'An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy. ? I am not sure I yet understand what occurred. There are clearly more than 100 climate scientists in the US / world. I have heard the figure 10,000 used. Though perhaps not explicitly stated in the article, its strongly implied that these 100 scientists contacted were a sample of the 10,000 (or so) qualified scientists. Probably a reasonable sample size. Hopefully the list was drawn in a random fashion. At a minumum, I presume no one has pointed to any extreme biases in the sample. That 19 of the 100 in the sample responded is pretty typical. Most research, marketing and political samples have high non-respondent rates. Its an issue, but not an unsurmountable problem. Particllary if the sample size was targeted at being larger than necessary, to account for non-respondents. Did all 19 that did respond support Gore's main points? If so, thats phenomenal. To have 100% of a sample (respondents) supporting the same view, indicates a high degree of concensus among the larger population of 10,000 (or so). Very little divergence (low sigman, low standard deviation from the population mean.) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: shempmcgurk wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: --- shempmcgurk wrote: Here's the article in question, Billie: http://tinyurl.com/hmron I, for one, would indeed like to know what the nation's top scientists thought of the movie...not JUST the 19 of 100 contacted who had seen the movie or read the book. Wouldn't you? Thanks for the link. I got the impression the article only gathered impressions from those who had seen the movie. Those who have seen it had the same general impression... Many had not seen the movie, hence, I would surmise, the relatively low number of citations vs. contacts. In light of the fact that only 19 of 100 contacted had seen the movie, do you think it was fair of the AP to lead with: The nation's top climate scientists are giving 'An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy. ? So Shemp, you've seen the film? I'm sure you wouldn't be one of these people criticizing without having seen it? I haven't seen it not do I intend to. But that's not what my post was about: it was about the response to it by the scientists and the reporting of the response. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: shempmcgurk wrote: In light of the fact that only 19 of 100 contacted had seen the movie, do you think it was fair of the AP to lead with: The nation's top climate scientists are giving 'An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy. ? I am not sure I yet understand what occurred. Why don't you read the article? There are clearly more than 100 climate scientists in the US / world. However, not all of the climate scientists in the U.S. (not the world--the nation refers to the U.S. specifically) would be considered the *top* climate scientists, you see. I have heard the figure 10,000 used. Though perhaps not explicitly stated in the article, its strongly implied that these 100 scientists contacted were a sample of the 10,000 (or so) qualified scientists. No, actually what was implied was that these 100 were the *top 100* climate scientists in the U.S. The question you want to be asking, I think, is, Who decided which were the top 100? That 19 of the 100 in the sample responded is pretty typical. Most research, marketing and political samples have high non-respondent rates. Its an issue, but not an unsurmountable problem. Particllary if the sample size was targeted at being larger than necessary, to account for non-respondents. Actually, if you read the article, what you'll find is that AP doesn't specify how many of the 100 responded. The 19 cited are those who had either read the book or seen the movie and were willing to comment to AP; AP didn't consider any other responses. It *does* say (if you read the article) that *most* of the scientists it contacted had *not* read the book or seen the movie. So it wasn't that 81 of the 100 scientists didn't respond, but that only 19 of the respondees were qualified to comment. Did all 19 that did respond support Gore's main points? Again, it's not all who responded, but all who had seen the movie or read the book and were willing to comment to AP (19 in number). Of the 19 who had seen the movie or read the book and were willing to comment, all, according to AP, were in agreement that Gore had made no serious mistakes in the science. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: shempmcgurk wrote: In light of the fact that only 19 of 100 contacted had seen the movie, do you think it was fair of the AP to lead with: The nation's top climate scientists are giving 'An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy. ? I am not sure I yet understand what occurred. There are clearly more than 100 climate scientists in the US / world. I have heard the figure 10,000 used. Though perhaps not explicitly stated in the article, its strongly implied that these 100 scientists contacted were a sample of the 10,000 (or so) qualified scientists. Probably a reasonable sample size. Hopefully the list was drawn in a random fashion. At a minumum, I presume no one has pointed to any extreme biases in the sample. That 19 of the 100 in the sample responded is pretty typical. Most research, marketing and political samples have high non-respondent rates. Its an issue, but not an unsurmountable problem. Particllary if the sample size was targeted at being larger than necessary, to account for non-respondents. The movie's only been out a few weeks. I wonder whether the 19 who did see it were predisposed to Gore's point of view. To give an extreme example: Star War fans are more likely to be the first to go see a new installment of the franchise. So perhaps the 19 are NOT as unbiased a sampling as we would like to have... Did all 19 that did respond support Gore's main points? If so, thats phenomenal. To have 100% of a sample (respondents) supporting the same view, indicates a high degree of concensus among the larger population of 10,000 (or so). Very little divergence (low sigman, low standard deviation from the population mean.) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: --- shempmcgurk wrote: Here's the article in question, Billie: http://tinyurl.com/hmron I, for one, would indeed like to know what the nation's top scientists thought of the movie...not JUST the 19 of 100 contacted who had seen the movie or read the book. Wouldn't you? Thanks for the link. Did my earlier post quoting the same article and providing a link to it not get posted? It did appear on the Web site, but neither you nor Shemp appears to have seen it. I'm having alot of trouble navigating around this new Yahoo! format. I completely missed an important post by new.morning on tax and only responded to it much later than I would have liked to. I got the impression the article only gathered impressions from those who had seen the movie. Seen the movie and/or read the book, that's correct. Those who have seen it had the same general impression... Many had not seen the movie, hence, I would surmise, the relatively low number of citations vs. contacts. Precisely. AP said explicitly that *most* of those they contacted had neither seen the movie nor read the book. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: --- shempmcgurk wrote: Here's the article in question, Billie: http://tinyurl.com/hmron I, for one, would indeed like to know what the nation's top scientists thought of the movie...not JUST the 19 of 100 contacted who had seen the movie or read the book. Wouldn't you? Thanks for the link. I got the impression the article only gathered impressions from those who had seen the movie. Those who have seen it had the same general impression... Many had not seen the movie, hence, I would surmise, the relatively low number of citations vs. contacts. In light of the fact that only 19 of 100 contacted had seen the movie, do you think it was fair of the AP to lead with: The nation's top climate scientists are giving 'An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy. ? Some of the nation's top climate scientists who haven't seen Al Gore's documentary are giving it low marks for accuracy. Would that work better for you, Shemp? Yes, that would have been alot more accurate. In other words: If you're giving a movie or a book marks for accuracy, it's *assumed* that you're among those who have seen the movie or read the book. AP could have written: Of the nation's top 100 climate scientists who have seen Al Gore's documentary, all give it five stars for accuracy. Of course, that's what it *did* say if you read beyond the first two paragraphs. ...but that's precisely my point: it is my understanding that the first paragraph, in particular of a news item, is supposed to fairly represent the entire article. You're an editor...is this not true? And that first paragraph did NOT accurately reflect what was written in the rest of the article (aside from the fact that the 19 probably did NOT all say that they gave it five stars for accuracy...but that's another issue). Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: shempmcgurk wrote: In light of the fact that only 19 of 100 contacted had seen the movie, do you think it was fair of the AP to lead with: The nation's top climate scientists are giving 'An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy. ? I am not sure I yet understand what occurred. There are clearly more than 100 climate scientists in the US / world. I have heard the figure 10,000 used. Though perhaps not explicitly stated in the article, its strongly implied that these 100 scientists contacted were a sample of the 10,000 (or so) qualified scientists. Probably a reasonable sample size. Hopefully the list was drawn in a random fashion. At a minumum, I presume no one has pointed to any extreme biases in the sample. That 19 of the 100 in the sample responded is pretty typical. Most research, marketing and political samples have high non-respondent rates. Its an issue, but not an unsurmountable problem. Particllary if the sample size was targeted at being larger than necessary, to account for non-respondents. The movie's only been out a few weeks. I wonder whether the 19 who did see it were predisposed to Gore's point of view. To give an extreme example: Star War fans are more likely to be the first to go see a new installment of the franchise. That's an extreme example and not parallel in many ways. If you were a climate scientist who did not agree with the general consensus on global warming, and were concerned about how well the public was being informed, you would of course want to see the movie or read the book so you could debunk it. Unless, of course, you didn't want to have your own viewpoint threatened. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: shempmcgurk wrote: In light of the fact that only 19 of 100 contacted had seen the movie, do you think it was fair of the AP to lead with: The nation's top climate scientists are giving 'An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy. ? I am not sure I yet understand what occurred. There are clearly more than 100 climate scientists in the US / world. I have heard the figure 10,000 used. Though perhaps not explicitly stated in the article, its strongly implied that these 100 scientists contacted were a sample of the 10,000 (or so) qualified scientists. Probably a reasonable sample size. Hopefully the list was drawn in a random fashion. At a minumum, I presume no one has pointed to any extreme biases in the sample. That 19 of the 100 in the sample responded is pretty typical. Most research, marketing and political samples have high non-respondent rates. Its an issue, but not an unsurmountable problem. Particllary if the sample size was targeted at being larger than necessary, to account for non-respondents. Did all 19 that did respond support Gore's main points? If so, thats phenomenal. To have 100% of a sample (respondents) supporting the same view, indicates a high degree of concensus among the larger population of 10,000 (or so). Very little divergence (low sigman, low standard deviation from the population mean.) Your questions above sound similar to what the GOP writer's of that majority report wanted to know. And I'd like to know it, too. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: --- shempmcgurk wrote: Here's the article in question, Billie: http://tinyurl.com/hmron I, for one, would indeed like to know what the nation's top scientists thought of the movie...not JUST the 19 of 100 contacted who had seen the movie or read the book. Wouldn't you? Thanks for the link. I got the impression the article only gathered impressions from those who had seen the movie. Those who have seen it had the same general impression... Many had not seen the movie, hence, I would surmise, the relatively low number of citations vs. contacts. In light of the fact that only 19 of 100 contacted had seen the movie, do you think it was fair of the AP to lead with: The nation's top climate scientists are giving 'An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy. ? Some of the nation's top climate scientists who haven't seen Al Gore's documentary are giving it low marks for accuracy. Would that work better for you, Shemp? Yes, that would have been alot more accurate. And you would take the opinion of the movie's accuracy of those who hadn't seen the movie as perfectly valid, right, Shemp? In other words: If you're giving a movie or a book marks for accuracy, it's *assumed* that you're among those who have seen the movie or read the book. AP could have written: Of the nation's top 100 climate scientists who have seen Al Gore's documentary, all give it five stars for accuracy. Of course, that's what it *did* say if you read beyond the first two paragraphs. ...but that's precisely my point: it is my understanding that the first paragraph, in particular of a news item, is supposed to fairly represent the entire article. You're an editor...is this not true? That's true, and in fact it does. And that first paragraph did NOT accurately reflect what was written in the rest of the article Sure it did. The other top climate scientists who commented hadn't seen it, so their opinions aren't significant. (aside from the fact that the 19 probably did NOT all say that they gave it five stars for accuracy...but that's another issue). Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Majority Press Release U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works Contact: MARC MORANO 202-224-5762, MATT DEMPSEY 202-224-9797 snip AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE'S MOVIE snip AND I'd like to know how AP justifies the lead paragraph of the article -- The nation's top climate scientists are giving 'An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy -- when the next paragraph tells us that only 19 of 100 contacted were in a position to even say such a thing. Tell me, Billie, do you think that was proper or fair of AP to lead with such a paragraph? (Sometimes right-wing hypocrisy is *so* outrageous, it goes right by me.) Tell me, McGoo, do you think it was proper or fair of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works to give that title to its press release? I think it was subtitled majority report (sorry, but I am having SO much trouble navigating around the forum I can't quickly find the original post to confirm the exact words) and, as such, it is partisan in nature so, yes, is the answer. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: shempmcgurk wrote: In light of the fact that only 19 of 100 contacted had seen the movie, do you think it was fair of the AP to lead with: The nation's top climate scientists are giving 'An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy. ? I am not sure I yet understand what occurred. There are clearly more than 100 climate scientists in the US / world. I have heard the figure 10,000 used. Though perhaps not explicitly stated in the article, its strongly implied that these 100 scientists contacted were a sample of the 10,000 (or so) qualified scientists. Probably a reasonable sample size. Hopefully the list was drawn in a random fashion. At a minumum, I presume no one has pointed to any extreme biases in the sample. That 19 of the 100 in the sample responded is pretty typical. Most research, marketing and political samples have high non-respondent rates. Its an issue, but not an unsurmountable problem. Particllary if the sample size was targeted at being larger than necessary, to account for non-respondents. Did all 19 that did respond support Gore's main points? If so, thats phenomenal. To have 100% of a sample (respondents) supporting the same view, indicates a high degree of concensus among the larger population of 10,000 (or so). Very little divergence (low sigman, low standard deviation from the population mean.) Your questions above sound similar to what the GOP writer's of that majority report wanted to know. Which majority report was that, Shemp? And I'd like to know it, too. Of course, new.morning's questions are based on a misunderstanding of how the survey was conducted, so they aren't valid. But I'm sure that's exactly the kinds of questions those reflexively opposed to the consensus view on global warming would attempt to raise, in order to confuse the issue as much as possible. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
shempmcgurk wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: shempmcgurk wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: --- shempmcgurk wrote: Here's the article in question, Billie: http://tinyurl.com/hmron I, for one, would indeed like to know what the nation's top scientists thought of the movie...not JUST the 19 of 100 contacted who had seen the movie or read the book. Wouldn't you? Thanks for the link. I got the impression the article only gathered impressions from those who had seen the movie. Those who have seen it had the same general impression... Many had not seen the movie, hence, I would surmise, the relatively low number of citations vs. contacts. In light of the fact that only 19 of 100 contacted had seen the movie, do you think it was fair of the AP to lead with: The nation's top climate scientists are giving 'An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy. ? So Shemp, you've seen the film? I'm sure you wouldn't be one of these people criticizing without having seen it? I haven't seen it not do I intend to. But that's not what my post was about: it was about the response to it by the scientists and the reporting of the response. Then you don't know for sure what they're talking about do you? Do you like eggs that much? :-D Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Majority Press Release U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works Contact: MARC MORANO 202-224-5762, MATT DEMPSEY 202-224- 9797 snip AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE'S MOVIE snip AND I'd like to know how AP justifies the lead paragraph of the article -- The nation's top climate scientists are giving 'An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy -- when the next paragraph tells us that only 19 of 100 contacted were in a position to even say such a thing. Tell me, Billie, do you think that was proper or fair of AP to lead with such a paragraph? (Sometimes right-wing hypocrisy is *so* outrageous, it goes right by me.) Tell me, McGoo, do you think it was proper or fair of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works to give that title to its press release? I think it was subtitled majority report (sorry, but I am having SO much trouble navigating around the forum I can't quickly find the original post to confirm the exact words) and, as such, it is partisan in nature so, yes, is the answer. Irrelevant. It's misrepresentational. Look at it again: AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE'S MOVIE Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Majority Press Release U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works Contact: MARC MORANO 202-224-5762, MATT DEMPSEY 202-224- 9797 snip AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE'S MOVIE snip AND I'd like to know how AP justifies the lead paragraph of the article -- The nation's top climate scientists are giving 'An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy -- when the next paragraph tells us that only 19 of 100 contacted were in a position to even say such a thing. Tell me, Billie, do you think that was proper or fair of AP to lead with such a paragraph? (Sometimes right-wing hypocrisy is *so* outrageous, it goes right by me.) Tell me, McGoo, do you think it was proper or fair of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works to give that title to its press release? I think it was subtitled majority report (sorry, but I am having SO much trouble navigating around the forum I can't quickly find the original post to confirm the exact words) and, as such, it is partisan in nature so, yes, is the answer. Irrelevant. It's misrepresentational. Look at it again: AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE'S MOVIE ...and in their first -- and most important paragraph -- the AP did incorrectly make that claim. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Majority Press Release U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works Contact: MARC MORANO 202-224-5762, MATT DEMPSEY 202- 224- 9797 snip AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE'S MOVIE snip AND I'd like to know how AP justifies the lead paragraph of the article -- The nation's top climate scientists are giving 'An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy -- when the next paragraph tells us that only 19 of 100 contacted were in a position to even say such a thing. Tell me, Billie, do you think that was proper or fair of AP to lead with such a paragraph? (Sometimes right-wing hypocrisy is *so* outrageous, it goes right by me.) Tell me, McGoo, do you think it was proper or fair of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works to give that title to its press release? I think it was subtitled majority report (sorry, but I am having SO much trouble navigating around the forum I can't quickly find the original post to confirm the exact words) and, as such, it is partisan in nature so, yes, is the answer. Irrelevant. It's misrepresentational. Look at it again: AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE'S MOVIE ...and in their first -- and most important paragraph -- the AP did incorrectly make that claim. Not incorrectly, Shemp. You saw the quotes. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I'm having alot of trouble navigating around this new Yahoo! format. I completely missed an important post by new.morning on tax and only responded to it much later than I would have liked to. Thanks for your reply, btw. I didn't know about the IRA rules Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I'm having alot of trouble navigating around this new Yahoo! format. I completely missed an important post by new.morning on tax and only responded to it much later than I would have liked to. BTW, Shemp wrote the above, not me. Thanks for your reply, btw. I didn't know about the IRA rules Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: Of course, new.morning's questions are based on a misunderstanding of how the survey was conducted, Since you are a stickler for correctness, I did not misunderstand how the survey was conducted. It appears to have been a telephone or e-mail survey and I am familiar their hows -- and have been involved with such. But I believed I knew what you meant, which is that I misunderstood -- actually misassumed -- that the 100 was sampling of the larger population of climate experts. so they aren't valid. I don't have my questions in front of me, but I as I recall them, they are valid regardless of my assumptions of whether the survey was a sample of all climate experts, or a total polling of the so called top 100. Frankly, on the latter point, I don't think a valid top 100 list could well be constructed -- such lists typically are much more a political prestige, lobbying thing. So regardless, I would take 100 'known, have a publicist, are on a contact for quotes list'-- type climate scientists as a sample of a larger group of competent climate scientists in many fields who actually make up the day to day findings of climate science -- and whose broader representation, IMO, is necessary to see where the field actually stands. Ideally, lots of supporting data on each scientist in the sample would be highly insightful to allow breaking down the sample via cross-tabs on and regressions including information on who they recieve funding from, how many lead and other authorships of relevant papers in the fieled they have published, the caliber of such journals, their education, current university or reserch affiliation, current research budgets for which they have direct management, etc. This would allow one to break down the concensus(es) among the real movers and shakers who are not funded by strongly biased sourses. But I'm sure that's exactly the kinds of questions those reflexively opposed to the consensus view on global warming would attempt to raise, in order to confuse the issue as much as possible. And as my example testifies, that's ALSO exactly the kinds of questions asked by those who support the consensus view on global warming, and have since working on the issue professional in 1990-92. And I raised such, without partisian intent, but to gain understand. Ironically, the points I raised, in my view, subject to further clarification of the sample, minimized shemps POV that the AP story was misleading. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I'm having alot of trouble navigating around this new Yahoo! format. I completely missed an important post by new.morning on tax and only responded to it much later than I would have liked to. BTW, Shemp wrote the above, not me. Thanks for your reply, btw. I didn't know about the IRA rules Yes, i am fully aware of that. Apologies for not deleting your name from the header. Sometimes in a block of names, non-relevant ones slip through. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: Of course, new.morning's questions are based on a misunderstanding of how the survey was conducted, Since you are a stickler for correctness, I did not misunderstand how the survey was conducted. LOL! Sure you did. You assumed the 100 scientists they attempted to contact were a (hopefully random) sample of all the climate scientists in the US/world, first of all, rather than somebody's list of the 100 *top* climate scientists in the U.S. Then you assumed the 19 scientists cited were the only respondents to the survey out of that 100, rather than the only respondents who had seen the movie or read the book. snip I don't have my questions in front of me, but I as I recall them, they are valid regardless of my assumptions of whether the survey was a sample of all climate experts, or a total polling of the so called top 100. See #2 above. Frankly, on the latter point, I don't think a valid top 100 list could well be constructed Right. As I said (did you miss it?): The question you *want* to be asking is, Who decides which are the 100 top climate scientists in the U.S.? snip But I'm sure that's exactly the kinds of questions those reflexively opposed to the consensus view on global warming would attempt to raise, in order to confuse the issue as much as possible. And as my example testifies, that's ALSO exactly the kinds of questions asked by those who support the consensus view on global warming, and have since working on the issue professional in 1990- 92. But not about *this* survey. And I raised such, without partisian intent, but to gain understand. Of course. Those I was referring to, unlike you, would be misrepresenting the relevant questions deliberately. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I'm having alot of trouble navigating around this new Yahoo! format. I completely missed an important post by new.morning on tax and only responded to it much later than I would have liked to. BTW, Shemp wrote the above, not me. Thanks for your reply, btw. I didn't know about the IRA rules Yes, i am fully aware of that. Apologies for not deleting your name from the header. Sometimes in a block of names, non-relevant ones slip through. I know, it's easy to do. No problem. Just stating for the record. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Fear-monger Gore's wacky science debunked
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: Of course, new.morning's questions are based on a misunderstanding of how the survey was conducted, Since you are a stickler for correctness, I did not misunderstand how the survey was conducted. LOL! Sure you did. You assumed the 100 scientists they attempted to contact were a (hopefully random) sample of all the climate scientists in the US/world, first of all, rather than somebody's list of the 100 *top* climate scientists in the U.S. Your lack of precision surprises me. I said how the survey was conducted. Apparently you are not aware of the distinction of conducting a survey, operative word conducting, and the preceeding steps -- sample design, etc. Anyway, I was simply offering you some feedback on a subtle point of imprecision. If you don't care to understand it, Ok. Its not a point of argument. snip But I'm sure that's exactly the kinds of questions those reflexively opposed to the consensus view on global warming would attempt to raise, in order to confuse the issue as much as possible. And as my example testifies, that's ALSO exactly the kinds of questions asked by those who support the consensus view on global warming, and have since working on the issue professional in 1990- 92. But not about *this* survey. ??? And I raised such, without partisian intent, but to gain understand. Of course. Those I was referring to, unlike you, would be misrepresenting the relevant questions deliberately. Ok. Just clarifying my response was not knee-jerk reflexive. Not that it matters. Just pointing out, in a well-intentioned feedback sort of way, Those reflexively opposed to the ... was not clear if you were including me in that group -- having just referenced me in your post. Ne way, its just feedback, not argumentation. Take it or leave it as suits you. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
