This is BDS's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following BDS's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
understand your point... probably side tracked a bit by "gotcha" and "tricky" and the posts which do point to the results of "politically charged questions"....such as CO2 levels and arctic ice. I still contend you would get different answers by political affiliation on Antarctic ice. I'm no tea partier - I just like dialogue that is as honest as it can be which is very hard to find.
Can I get an example of such a question? Just one. I'm looking for a factual question that is "politically charged", the answer of which would likely be at odds with the global warming enthusiasts mindset.
L H - yes, I read your abstract and the one about political facts. I am puzzled why you can't see the validity of my question. If all the questions you asked were designed to highlight the ignorance of one subset of people (less informed individuals that sit on the "denial" side) your study is flawed. Said in another way - if the correct answers to the factual questions adhere to the general mindset of one side of the argument - less informed individuals would naturally assume a certain answer based on their beliefs. It is, in your words, a "gotcha" study. I could easily craft multiple questions that weren't gotcha questions. Any questions like that in your study? In fact your second abstract - the fact that you didn't find political divisions in less politicized factual questions - likely supports my hypothesis that all your questions were designed to expose the ignorance of one side. I would still expect to find greater ignorance within the groups like your study suggested - however, I believe your study is biased and the findings exaggerate reality.
Are you serious? Somehow asking a question about the Arctic Sea Ice is a question about "basic relevant facts" (your words) yet a question about Antarctic Sea Ice is the definition of a "gotcha" question? I think I understand where you are coming from now.....
asking whether or not ice extent in Antarctica is increasing/decreasing/staying the same is by no means a "gotcha" question. it is just crafted to expose the ignorance of one group of people rather than another.
how do you think the polling would have come out if the question had been about Antarctic sea ice? I'm sure a question could have been created that would have resulted in just as many incorrect answers in the Clinton voter camp. I'm sure you could have crafted any number of questions about other hot political topics - and depending on how you crafted them - you would have gotten equally wrong answers on both sides of the aisle.
Is that the 2014 temperature average through August as compared to annual averages?
Toggle Commented Sep 10, 2014 on PIOMAS September 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
i had looked at the IPCC report (graphs and report) as well as surface temperature graphs and other information. the IPCC report is now a fake and skeptical? regardless of the above - my point remains. the straight line fit to the 1979 - current sea ice anomoly trend is misleading. it creates the appearance of a pretty steady and drastic change over a 35 year period and that clearly isn't what has taken place.
Toggle Commented Sep 9, 2014 on PIOMAS September 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
D - that is not true. The end of the 1970s was the end to an extended period of low temperatures in the arctic. I assume, as noted above, that sea ice was at a very high point. Regardless - a straight line for that data at that starting point is very misleading. Calling it a 35 year trend is misleading. What we are dealing with is 20 years at most.
Toggle Commented Sep 9, 2014 on PIOMAS September 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
one question from a long-time lurker. I find the PIOMAS trend line misleading. While 1979 matches up with the beginning of satellite tracking - it also matches up with several consecutive years of pretty cold weather. The starting point is elevated to the point of exageration. The first 15 years are somewhat flat. What we really have is a 20 year trend (or less) - which is now showing signs of a rebound. i am sure this is just a straightline fit to the data - but still very misleading in my view. At the very least - the downward slope of the first 15 years is much smaller than the last 20. I would be interested in thoughts on this as this has always bothered me.
Toggle Commented Sep 8, 2014 on PIOMAS September 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
BDS is now following The Typepad Team
Sep 8, 2014