tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post6085567433801659801..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Scientific American Poll: 81% think the IPCC is Corrupt, with Group-think & Political AgendaUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-9879616923408189102010-11-07T12:25:19.072-08:002010-11-07T12:25:19.072-08:00Global warming is a hoax. It was conceived out of...Global warming is a hoax. It was conceived out of nothing. In 1970 the newspapers were saying a new ice age was upon us. <br />The hoax pays persons like Al Gore huge amounts of money. Yes, indeed, the weather and the climate change. That's why we call it "weather" meaning "whether" or not. Surprise, surprise. Things change. Invest in energy. Perhaps we can live out the changes in "whether" if we have enough energy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-25782003130583100522010-11-05T14:55:18.436-07:002010-11-05T14:55:18.436-07:00This survey was handled online by surveymonkey.com...This survey was handled online by surveymonkey.com, which prettyy much precludes monkeying (sorry...:-) with the results.<br /><br />It might very well have been pushed a bit one way or the other by bloggers drawing attention to it, but if you check, you'll find the original article in SA online was mentioned in blogs from both extremes of the climate wars.<br /><br />This said, the results are amusing.Kip H.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-41581128189939643312010-11-04T22:00:09.681-07:002010-11-04T22:00:09.681-07:00I am a SA subscriber, and I am about to cancel my ...I am a SA subscriber, and I am about to cancel my subscription. They cannot publish an article on any subject any more without making at least one gratuitous “global warming” reference. There is a reference in every article except the skeptic column. It’s pathetic.<br /><br />But in addition to that, they have a new binding now with the new look that does not fold back on itself so reading on the toilet is much more difficult. And with the new editorial direction, the toilet is the only place to read it as there are no more scientific articles in it. <br /><br />I remember the days when researchers were recounting how they used a trial and error evolutionary process to build working circuits using a computer circuit simulator (something like CAD for circuits), and had duplicated several patented circuits and also invented a few unique ones. (I enjoyed that article; it influenced my thought on technical development quite a bit.) Now you get an article about whether robots should be programmed with ethics and the detail behind it is some sliding rheostats. Pathetic. <br /><br />Robots aren’t going to have ethics any more than people do, they are going to have objectives, given to them by their designers in much the same way our objectives have been given to us via expediency in the contest for survival (of the gene pool, not the individual). And discussions on expedient behavior are still very premature given that presupposes cognitive recognition if it is to operate above what would be the equivalent of the hippocampus and down to the brain stem in a human. The cerebral cortex is a long way from being simulated, even if they are getting pretty good at some of the other functions on an isolated basis. Speech recognition and even “macro responses” are nice, but they are not speech cognition.<br /><br />It’s an editorial rag now, designed to engage the masses in moralizing about science, not understanding it. And the change came with the new binding, although they had even biologists pushing the man made global warming consensus for some time. Something went very wrong with SA. Whoever is behind it picked the wrong audience to try and propagandize. There are some people who won’t be part of the group think and it’s best to leave them alone and don’t call attention to it.nonplusednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-1208118255911244102010-11-04T14:35:40.304-07:002010-11-04T14:35:40.304-07:00It's very easy to game an online poll. All yo...It's very easy to game an online poll. All you have to do is put out emails to people who su[port your position, and have them enter the poll, even if they don't know anything about it. I might have some little confidence in such a poll if it was restricted to actual paid subscribers of Scientific American magazine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-40883960597794059822010-11-04T12:38:45.717-07:002010-11-04T12:38:45.717-07:00Looks like someone can't understand,
1602+170...Looks like someone can't understand,<br /><br />1602+1708+3934+320=7564<br /><br />1602/7564=21%<br /><br />(1708+3934)/7564=75%<br /><br />The poll apparently allowed more than one response to the question since 7564>5190, but in terms of the percentage of responses to the poorly designed question, the percentages I calculated are in fact correct. Obviously, the question is poorly designed because solar variability is a natural process and it is entirely unclear as to how many thought they could vote for both or just one or vote for greenhouse gases as well, therefore the only way to frame the results is in terms of percentage of responses.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-37745815030314973892010-11-04T12:14:21.301-07:002010-11-04T12:14:21.301-07:00You write:
"75% think climate change is caus...You write:<br /><br />"75% think climate change is caused by solar variation or natural processes vs. 21% who think it is due to greenhouse gases from human activity."<br /><br />Whilst your quote of the survey says:<br /><br />"3. What is causing climate change?<br /><br />-greenhouse gases from human activity 30.9%"Looks like someone can't read:noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-38700927913106941182010-11-04T11:40:21.719-07:002010-11-04T11:40:21.719-07:00I wonder if this will change SA's practice of ...I wonder if this will change SA's practice of ramming human caused climate change hysteria down it's readers throats.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07819187155948994625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-70019862394569548742010-11-04T11:05:45.706-07:002010-11-04T11:05:45.706-07:00Grammar alert: When you start a sentence with a nu...Grammar alert: When you start a sentence with a number, you ALWAYS spell it out. Hence, "65% think" should read "Sixty-five percent think."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-72023666509343716272010-11-04T11:03:45.686-07:002010-11-04T11:03:45.686-07:00I am surprised these results ever saw the light of...I am surprised these results ever saw the light of day. I am surprised they were not edited to agree with political correctness. I would expect Scientific American to retaliate in some way against its readers.RichardChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03323395002515924641noreply@blogger.com