|
0 members (),
25
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,128
Posts314,539
Members6,305
| |
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,082 Likes: 134
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,082 Likes: 134 |
I only mentioned "Dismissives" in relation to the possible categorization Not at all; you're simply making it up. you mentioned it because you like the characterization ... don;t like it ... just wanted to waste bandwidth please i am making a conclusion based on your posts ... you want to relabel dismissive as category X kewl do you like that characterization now
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 7,626
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 7,626 |
If there was anything worthwhile in the original post, it might be interesting to go back there and try to start discussing that.
.... just a thought Hi Ardy. Resistance from the gang. It's easier to just keep on making things up faster and faster, it seems. With respect to the poll questions 1/ How much do you agree or disagree with the following
statement? "I could easily change my mind about global
warming." Any comments on what kind of thoughts might be stimulated, for instance, on the question's contextual meaning; the question as it could be taken wrt the readers' internal state ? I think one could be tempted to assume that answering to the negative, is an indicator of some negative intellectual or ethical characteristic, or quality, to many "progressive" thinkers. It's being "inflexible", "dogmatic", "not willing to look at contrary evidence" etc. kinda stuck in rut, ain't ya.
sure, you can talk to god, but if you don't listen then what's the use? so, onward through the fog!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 293
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 293 |
I only mentioned "Dismissives" in relation to the possible categorization Not at all; you're simply making it up. you mentioned it because you like the characterization ... don;t like it ... just wanted to waste bandwidth I didn't even touch on the subject. I have not even looked into the categorizations yet. please i am making a conclusion based on your posts ... you want to relabel dismissive as category X kewl do you like that characterization now "Please", nothing. You're telling lies about me. I find nothing inherently wrong, generally, in giving a label "dismissive" to one category, about a belief or set of beliefs held. However, it may not be that great a name, in conveying the "spectrum" aspect, of attitudes found. That would be my first check of the categorizations - how they flow semantically, from one side of the gauge, to the other extreme. I may find some technical problem or semantics difficulty later, wrt the names, or the categories, but as I say, I have not actually gone through it wrt that angle, yet. I would appreciate it if you would stop telling untruths about me. I will appreciate it when you begin to properly quote what you are making claims about. Noted that what you quoted, you took out of context and twisted to look quite different from what actually was transpiring. As can be seen, I was talking to logtroll about his off-topic remarks about me. I had neither relished nor complained about the categorization ( "Dismissive") that he offered; I joked about his typo, only. That you can quote me using the word once, does not offer any evidence of what you claim. It's dishonest, to present it as if it did offer evidence of what you are claiming. Thank you in advance for curtailing your dishonest behaviour.
Last edited by Perfect Fit; 07/13/11 08:46 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 293
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 293 |
Well, you could have meant either "dismissive", or "demissive".
No need to become nasty. It's the stuffs you write.
It's not like I'm writing those mangled stuffs that you pop up with. As can be seen, this is the only time I mentioned it, and this is in context; pointing out his typo to him.
Last edited by Perfect Fit; 07/13/11 09:03 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,082 Likes: 134
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,082 Likes: 134 |
I would appreciate it if you would stop telling untruths about me. apparently you do have a problem ... i have not stated you are fat/ugly/idiotic/etc which would be blatant lies (could be true) but since i know you not they would be lies are you or are you not offended in any manner by the categories selected for the poll? if not i will gladly retract my conclusion (how can one's opinion be a lie?) in fact i will do so now by saying perfect fit is not offended by the category of dismissive used in the study and ... nah i thought you may endorse it but you won't ... there ya go
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 293
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 293 |
I would appreciate it if you would stop telling untruths about me. apparently you do have a problem ... i have not stated you are fat/ugly/idiotic/etc which would be blatant lies (could be true) but since i know you not they would be lies are you or are you not offended in any manner by the categories selected for the poll? if not i will gladly retract my conclusion I don't care if you retract your conclusion. You'll need to retract your allegation, is what you'll need to retract. (how can one's opinion be a lie?) When you state something false, about a person. In this case, you stated some things that are false, as facts. what perfect objects to is the characterization in the report of dismissives I replied advising you that it was false Not at all; you're simply making it up.
I only mentioned "Dismissives" in relation to the possible categorization, "Demissive", ala Loggy's "Dimissive". I didn't even touch on the topic of your claim. Go check my posts. You replied, rejecting what I said : you mentioned it because you like the characterization ... don;t like it ... just wanted to waste bandwidth Which is false again, as I had just explained; I had not examined or dealt with the issue yet. you go on please i am making a conclusion based on your posts ... you want to relabel dismissive as category X kewl do you like that characterization now which is false in fact i will do so now by saying perfect fit is not offended by the category of dismissive used in the study and ... nah i thought you may endorse it but you won't ... there ya go I am not offended by the name of the category as used.
Last edited by Perfect Fit; 07/14/11 12:01 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 802
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 802 |
After careful perusal of all the evidence I have concluded its the division I've named the Yale/Bush fault !! >Mech
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 293
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 293 |
"Dismissive" is free of associations with negative imagery, as far as I can tell.
The only critique I would offer is not about the name but about how the categories are made and how they relate. I haven't checked yet so no comment yet, but it's difficult to properly make such categories and have questions that neatly send your answer to one of the baskets.
Last edited by Perfect Fit; 07/14/11 02:53 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 293
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 293 |
Now to the next question in the tables that pops out at me. This poll asks about knowledge, apparently referencing Zimmerman's / Doran's poll and study that came up with about 97 % agreement from about 75 publishing climate scientists, on these 2 questions, thus a "consensus" that people might be aware of. 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels,
do you think that mean global temperatures
have generally risen, fallen, or
remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures? Only in the Alarmed and Concerned groups were a majority aware that most scientists think global warming is occurring. Majorities in the other four groups said that either there was a lot of disagreement among scientists or that they didn't know. Even among the Alarmed and Concerned, however, awareness of the strength of scientific agreement is low: While approximately 97% of publishing climate scientists agree that climate change is occurring and that it is caused primarily by human activities, this high level of scientific agreement is recognized by
only 44 percent of the Alarmed, 18 percent of the Concerned, 12 percent of the Cautious, and 5 percent or fewer of the Disengaged, Doubtful and Dismissive. Showing that there is a divergence of terminology between the source and the pollsters', and more, there is a divergence of understanding. Doran says "significant contributing factor", and our guys now say "caused primarily by". Now let's see if it's Doran or his student's paper that is being cited. If I'm right, of course, then what this kind of error may demonstrate most clearly, is that these scientists are dealing from a position of ignorance themselves, and compounding the problem by sloppy or not even attempted research, and so have slightly fouled the poll here.
Last edited by Perfect Fit; 07/14/11 01:29 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,082 Likes: 134
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,082 Likes: 134 |
Interesting use of language. "The reality and danger", and "actions to mitigate the threat" - this rather than to say "actions to 'mitigate' the perceived threat". perhaps you did not read the names of the pollsters and their affiliations ... they are all associated with climate change ... the poll has to do with people's perceptions ... your "critique" is clearly irrelevant to their intentions and has nothing to do with proving/disproving climate change or anything to do with the science perhaps you should make a poll yourself (why don';t you say yea or nay to that?) so we can see your bias are you biased? yes or no Most people could be fitted into one or more categories all statistical analysis comes to this question and it is answered in the study ... so what are you trying to say??? Wrong again. I noted that the language being used in the introduction wrongly implied the existence of "the threat", instead of correctly implying perceived existence, or perhaps "the threat of the threat". This can only be true if you are biased toward the dismissive category ... the language would be wrong if there were not considerable evidence for it to be true ... for you it is obvious there is not considerable evidence and therefore the language is wrong It's a first observation of possibilities for understanding the approach taken, or possible bias expressed. It doesn't mean that they did something wrong inside the actual study work. THEY ARE ALL IN THE CLIMATE CHANGE COMMUNITY!!!!! want to buy a clue??? have you read it yet??? so you claim - again providing nothing to substantiate the claim i think logtroll was referring to your positional remarks hitting almost every TP of the conservative deniers ... so how about clarifying??? are you a denier or not??? what perfect objects to is the characterization in the report of dismissives to which you replied Not at all; you're simply making it up. but then you stated I think one could be tempted to assume that answering to the negative, is an indicator of some negative intellectual or ethical characteristic, or quality, to many "progressive" thinkers.
It's being "inflexible", "dogmatic", "unwilling to set aside bias and examine the contrary evidence", etc. one is not tempted to assume but rather through experience conclude that one may be as described. this i believe is precisely to what you objected to with the category "dismissive" ... you would rather be viewed as open minded instead of being categorized as an inflexible, dogmatic, intractable denier which i would guess offends your delicate sensibilities so in order to clarify in my mind that you are not an inflexible, dogmatic, intractable denier but an open minded person of inestimable intellectual capacities, what evidence would be required for you to change your mind? see below To change an opinion based on long consideration, would seem to require very compelling, very well documented information, or a devastating hit to a former construct. so as above i presume you can outline what that compelling, well documented information is I'll just read through and point out things as I notice them. not much point as they are in the climate change community However, it may not be that great a name, in conveying the "spectrum" aspect, of attitudes found. That would be my first check of the categorizations - how they flow semantically, from one side of the gauge, to the other extreme. semantic flow??? wow please offer your semantically correct categories. The category name is about as accurate as can be from their perspective ... 90+% of "dismissives" reject climate change so it is accurate description I may find some technical problem or semantics difficulty later so may i conclude you will object to anything from the internal bias of the pollsters? I am not offended by the name of the category as used. so you are not offended by the name but you may find semantic problems ... i hope it is not the dismissive category The only critique I would offer is not about the name but about how the categories are made and how they relate. I haven't checked yet so no comment yet, but it's difficult to properly make such categories and have questions that neatly send your answer to one of the baskets. so basically you will tell the pollsters they did not do the poll the way you want them to (who would have thunk that) please note that when analyzing polling numbers either the categories account for more than 100% or not and if they account only for 100% they are selected based on some criteria inherent in the process. the only way you would know would be to have the raw data and do the analysis yourself so may i conclude you are a dismissive and should i "assume" ... would you object if i thought you would object to anything i would say (i am voting yes ... what say you?)
|
|
|
|
|
