Is This a Verifiable Claim?

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Are you reading what the pollsters said?
They're saying specifically that they were wrong, thus the reports.
If the bus was late--- and, according to them, it was--- their schedule was wrong.
It doesn't matter what I say: they said it themselves.

I imagine that bus timetables are not usually constructed by asking the passengers how soon they expect the bus to arrive.

Whether the polls were correct or not depends on the expected precision of the poll. If their 95% confidence interval did not contain the actual result then the poll was inaccurate, if it did then it was not. Election result predictions based on the polls were liable to be faulty, as some of the critical states were close. The pollsters probably felt obliged to make a call when they should have been saying the polls were inconclusive.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You are a leftist that ASSUMES AGW is settled science. It never was and still is not. Your bias is clearly politically motivated since you never bothered to research actual science regarding this matter. If you had you would know better.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
You are a leftist that ASSUMES AGW is settled science. It never was and still is not. Your bias is clearly politically motivated since you never bothered to research actual science regarding this matter. If you had you would know better.

You mean because you and three other people think AGW is refuted, that means we should all fall over and play dead, meanwhile humans are, besides screwing up climate, are also causing the greatest mass extinction of animal life the likes we haven't seen for millions of years.

So hide your head in the sand but don't buy beachfront property if I were you.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
You are a leftist that ASSUMES AGW is settled science. It never was and still is not. Your bias is clearly politically motivated since you never bothered to research actual science regarding this matter. If you had you would know better.

How much "actual science" have you read on the topic of global warming?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Bernie Sanders once said that poor people don't vote. If he is right you have a point so I agree with you there. Parliament does vote though and that is the standard that must be met unless you want to argue that getting as many opinions as possible is not worth the money.
If it is not worth the money then the results in Iowa should be used to determin ...[text shortened]... onest about the number I think it is important to state the real percentage for all here to see.

...annnd... you didn't address anything I wrote. Why bring up poor people? I looked it up. Less than 50% of Iowans voted, but I'm forgetting what your point was on that. You think the percentages would change significantly from nationwide where 125 million people voted? If, as you suggest, we used the Iowa results only then we would have the same president. Are you trying to say that if all of Iowa had voted then the overall result would be different? How do you know that? Obviously the more votes the better, but you work with what you have.

Your position is that the polls of climate scientists regarding causes of global warming are not interpretable unless everyone is represented. That is ridiculous. Science isn't Parliament, nor should it be.

It is 65% of polled scientists who agree that >50% of global warming is anthropogenically-caused. I've looked it up many times and posted quotes and statistics from multiple independent studies, and been extremely open and forthright about it.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
You mean because you and three other people think AGW is refuted, that means we should all fall over and play dead, meanwhile humans are, besides screwing up climate, are also causing the greatest mass extinction of animal life the likes we haven't seen for millions of years.

So hide your head in the sand but don't buy beachfront property if I were you.

"you and three other people think AGW is refuted"

Can you prove that? Nope.

Do everybody a favor and shut up. If you are just going to make stuff up nobody who cares about science wants to see it.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You are a leftist. You could be a democrat, a green or a socialist but it doesn't matter. I don't claim to be part of any political party. Maybe you are the same way. It is irrelevant. I think you have bought into AGW propaganda and you are too politically biased to realize it.

Do you even know anything about AGW theory? Do you know anything at all about the Pliocene Epoch? The Vostok ice core samples?

Do you even have the slightest clue about climate change at all? Is your only goal to troll and be a hypocrite?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Very similar to Freak's idea that men did not walk on the moon, it is all a vast international conspiracy, since the Soviets ATT knew full well we DID go to the moon in 69, so they and China and the UK and all the other space faring nations are in on the big sell to keep the world from knowing Earth is flat, the sun is about 50 miles across and orbiting somehow like a tetherball above the flat Earth, and on and on and on.

Don't know which one is worse, the Metal head conspiracy or the Freak conspiracy.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You are so ignorant beyond belief it is sickening. Do you even read what you write before posting such ignorance?

All people believe in climate change, at least those that are educated enough to be aware of the ice age. Since there is an animated movie called "Ice Age" I'm sure many children are aware of climate change just because they saw that film.

Try using specific terms like man made global warming. Your use of the term climate change in the context you used it in is embarrassingly ignorant. Do I deny the ice ages happened? That is climate change!

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Very similar to Freak's idea that men did not walk on the moon, it is all a vast international conspiracy, since the Soviets ATT knew full well we DID go to the moon in 69, so they and China and the UK and all the other space faring nations are in on the big sell to keep the world from knowing Earth is flat, the sun is about 50 miles across and orbiting so ...[text shortened]... on and on.

Don't know which one is worse, the Metal head conspiracy or the Freak conspiracy.

You are doing more ad hominem attacks that show your weakness.

Also, you ironically believe in left wing conspiracy theories. You clearly stated in one of the threads on the debates forum that you believed Trump conspired with the Russians to rig our elections.

You are a conspiracy theorist. Do you have disdain for yourself?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
You are doing more ad hominem attacks that show your weakness.

Also, you ironically believe in left wing conspiracy theories. You clearly stated in one of the threads on the debates forum that you believed Trump conspired with the Russians to rig our elections.

You are a conspiracy theorist. Do you have disdain for yourself?

Trump didn't have to conspire with the Russians, his buddies did it for him. And that was not ad hominem, it was truth. If you don't think what I said about Freak is right, just ask him his take on moon landings and flat Earth.

I just put you in the same light because you go against prevailing science based on parroting your buddies who 50 years ago claimed nobody knows climate change like he does and ignoring the subsequent developments of science.

Like your continual claim temperature rises before CO2 emissions rise, pointing to some event millions of years ago thinking you are proving your thesis, well, SOMEBODIES thesis, not your own for sure.

It matters little that the vast majority of climatologists disagree with that, your buddies are the god's of climate and could not possibly be wrong.

Sounds like conspiracy to me.

The entire universe of climatologists are full of shyte but your buddies are the only ones who knows the true story, and you expect us to fall over and play dead in spite of the evidence against your buddies' view from decades ago.

Hey, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, chances are it is a duck.

Another thing: You seem to be a one trick pony, interested in destroying existing climate science and that's pretty much it.

If you see my posts you will see I have a far ranging curiosity about many subjects in science and music and chess and the arts.

What else interests you besides your attempt to squash existing climate science?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Trump didn't have to conspire with the Russians, his buddies did it for him. And that was not ad hominem, it was truth. If you don't think what I said about Freak is right, just ask him his take on moon landings and flat Earth.

I just put you in the same light because you go against prevailing science based on parroting your buddies who 50 years ago cl ...[text shortened]... nd the arts.

What else interests you besides your attempt to squash existing climate science?

"Trump didn't have to conspire with the Russians, his buddies did it for him."

So Trump was innocent. Is that what you are saying?

The vast majority of Climate Scientists do not disagree with me. You are repeating a myth.

Originally posted by @metal-brain


The vast majority of Climate Scientists do not disagree with me.

How can that possibly be true when the majority of climate scientists say there is measurable man made global warming and most of the recent warming is probably man made?