Originally posted by @freakykbhIt doesn't matter what polling organizations did or didn't say, or whether or not they intend to improve their polling techniques or not, or what the favourite colour of polling organizations is, or whether their bookkeeper is a guy called Steve.
What is so difficult to understand about this?
Ask yourself, PhD.
The polling organizations--- where it is and can be presumed to be chock full of actual, real-life experts on stats--- acknowledged the need for better polling practices back in 2006 (apparently unheeded because... ) and then again in 2016.
If they were as comfortable with the results as ...[text shortened]... rises for you is west for someone east of your location.
A contrarian idiot, in other words.
The polls made a prediction. The prediction was close to the result. The polls were accurate. If this reality offends you, go cry in a corner.
1 edit
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraSo we have some random anonymous self-identified PhD with self-declared published papers claiming the polling results were good, were accurate, against THE ENTIRE POLLING INDUSTRY WHICH SAID THEY GOT IT WRONG AND NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET BETTER.
It doesn't matter what polling organizations did or didn't say, or whether or not they intend to improve their polling techniques or not, or what the favourite colour of polling organizations is, or whether their bookkeeper is a guy called Steve.
The polls made a prediction. The prediction was close to the result. The polls were accurate. If this reality offends you, go cry in a corner.
Wonder which opinion we should go with.
Hmmm...
This one's a real puzzler, innit!
Originally posted by @freakykbhI am not "claiming" the national polls were accurate. You can see it clear as day. Prediction +3.3%, result +2.1%. The numbers are right there in front of you.
So we have some random anonymous self-identified PhD with self-declared published papers claiming the polling results were good, were accurate, against THE [b]ENTIRE POLLING INDUSTRY WHICH SAID THEY GOT IT WRONG AND NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET BETTER.
Wonder which opinion we should go with.
Hmmm...
This one's a real puzzler, innit![/b]
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraYep.
I am not "claiming" the national polls were accurate. You can see it clear as day. Prediction +3.3%, result +2.1%. The numbers are right there in front of you.
Those numbers are right there in front of everyone .
You know what else is right there in front of everyone?
The polling organizations themselves saying they got it... what's the word they use?... oh, that's right: they got it wrong.
1 edit
Originally posted by @freakykbhDefine, according to you, exactly how inaccurate an estimate needs to be for it to be 'wrong'...
... oh, that's right: they got it [b]wrong.[/b]
at least 10%? or 30%? And why that arbitrary figure and not some other arbitrary figure?
Originally posted by @humySeriously?
Define, according to you, exactly how inaccurate an estimate needs to be for it to be 'wrong'...
at least 10%? or 30%? And why that arbitrary figure and not some other arbitrary figure?
Why would you ask a guy who is not an expert on stats--- my understanding of them is maybe two deviations above average (haha) --- when actual-factual real-live experts--- people who use them for a living and upon whom the entire world relies for their work--- are saying--- TWICE--- they got it wrong and they need to improve?
Why is this so hard for three or four idgets on the internet to get a handle on?
It's almost as though the results don't match your narrative, so... change the results!
FFS: you, KN and anyone else who continue to insist they got it right really need to simply pull your heads out of your collective asses and read what the experts said.
Originally posted by @freakykbhAgain, it doesn't matter what some people working for polling organizations said - we can see from the actual numbers that the national polls were accurate.
Yep.
Those numbers are right there in front of everyone .
You know what else is right there in front of everyone?
The polling organizations themselves saying they got it... what's the word they use?... oh, that's right: they got it [b]wrong.[/b]
6 edits
Originally posted by @freakykbhBecause it was a completely rhetorical question because I assumed that, just like most people INCLUDING those who don't know about stats and given the context and unlike what you implied, you would know it is just common sense that THERE IS NO FIGURE to define how inaccurate an estimate has to be to be define as 'wrong' unless hard margins of errors are defined which they weren't in that context. How on earth could they be any such figure? If there was such a figure, what on earth could it be based on if not just randomly made up out of thin air? Thus you cannot validly label an estimate (of the polls) as 'wrong' (like you did) just because it could have (with the benefit of hindsight) theoretically been more accurate than it was. I guess you really don't have common sense.
Why would you ask a guy who is not an expert on stats
Originally posted by @freakykbhThey have chosen to digress into cherry picking election polls to avoid the real debate. They can't win so they are using digression tactics.
From what I've seen from the explanations thus far, nothing matters until the stats support a particular viewpoint.
They know the study is flawed.
1 edit
Originally posted by @metal-brainLOL. You're saying this but in an earlier post you said:
They have chosen to digress into cherry picking election polls to avoid the real debate. They can't win so they are using digression tactics.
They know the study is flawed.
Iowa better represents the 29% (actually less than that) of climate scientists in the study you posted and wildgrass before you in another thread.
WHAT!? If that's not cherry picking I don't know what is. You focused on the difference in polling vs. voting in Iowa instead of the USA as a whole because the number was bigger. There was no other explanation.
Originally posted by @humyThanks for the explanation.
Because it was a completely rhetorical question because I assumed that, just like most people INCLUDING those who don't know about stats and given the context and unlike what you implied, you would know it is just common sense that THERE IS NO FIGURE to define how inaccurate an estimate has to be to be define as 'wrong' unless hard margins of errors are define ...[text shortened]... sight) theoretically been more accurate than it was. I guess you really don't have common sense.
For a better, more detailed and precise explanation, kindly refer to either the 183 page report or the 221 page report from the association which guides polling organizations wherein they describe how they got it so wrong and their suggested remedies therein.
Originally posted by @wildgrassIowa was first. You don't save election costs by continuing after that. There is your explanation. Duh!
LOL. You're saying this but in an earlier post you said:Iowa better represents the 29% (actually less than that) of climate scientists in the study you posted and wildgrass before you in another thread.
WHAT!? If that's not cherry picking I don't know what is. You focused on the difference in polling vs. voting in Iowa instead of the USA as a whole because the number was bigger. There was no other explanation.
🙄
Originally posted by @metal-brainThat's a nonsensical explanation that doesn't justify at all why you cherry picked Iowa. First in what? Voting? They're in the central time zone. What election costs savings are you talking about? Are you referring to the results of the Republican primary caucuses? Didn't Ted Cruz win that in 2016? Is your +/- 10% number in polling vs. voting even correct? If we take the 65% of polled scientists who agree that >50% of global warming is anthropogenically-caused, and apply your +/- 10% error metric that you derived from the Iowa caucus poll of 2016, doesn't that still get us to a majority?
Iowa was first. You don't save election costs by continuing after that. There is your explanation. Duh!
🙄
Originally posted by @wildgrassMetal and Freaky and their buddies have one agenda: To kill real science and allow crackpots to control science funding. That way the EPA goes away, oh wait, already done, climate change caused by mankind totally refuted, we can go back to gas guzzlers again so big oil can continue to fund congressmen they like and so forth.
That's a nonsensical explanation that doesn't justify at all why you cherry picked Iowa. First in what? Voting? They're in the central time zone. What election costs savings are you talking about? Are you referring to the results of the Republican primary caucuses? Didn't Ted Cruz win that in 2016? Is your +/- 10% number in polling vs. voting even correc ...[text shortened]... ric that you derived from the Iowa caucus poll of 2016, doesn't that still get us to a majority?
Originally posted by @wildgrassI didn't cherry pick Iowa. I brought up the whole comparison to voting to show no state wants to be left out of the election process. To suggest that some should not get a vote is hypocritical and wrongheaded.
That's a nonsensical explanation that doesn't justify at all why you cherry picked Iowa. First in what? Voting? They're in the central time zone. What election costs savings are you talking about? Are you referring to the results of the Republican primary caucuses? Didn't Ted Cruz win that in 2016? Is your +/- 10% number in polling vs. voting even correc ...[text shortened]... ric that you derived from the Iowa caucus poll of 2016, doesn't that still get us to a majority?
I still insist parliament is the best comparison. It makes sense and that is why democrats avoid it like the plague. It is their duty to vote and represent the people and climate scientists should be polled without omission. You don't even know how many climate scientists there are. How many are left out of the survey? These questions need to be answered.
65% of polled scientists? Don't you mean 29%? It is actually less than 29% since close to 1000 emails were not successfully delivered. Get your numbers straight.