Whining Iraqis!!

[shaunbhoy]

Hint: It's about the representativeness of not of polls.

Ah I see, so taking your apparent conclusion, if I ask the raving bigot in the adjacent room if he likes asians and blacks, his answer is "100% representative of all those polled". It is not that difficult to grasp, even for someone as pea-brained as you. In short, the larger the number of people polled, the more difficult it is to skew the figures in your favour. You'd have grasped that if you were not bedevilled with the comprehension abilities of a mollusc. Now get back to doing what you do well, if there is anything.

[SallyAnne]

Keep your apron on shandypants!

[sasguru]

Ah I see, so taking your apparent conclusion, if I ask the raving bigot in the adjacent room if he likes asians and blacks, his answer is "100% representative of all those polled". It is not that difficult to grasp, even for someone as pea-brained as you. In short, the larger the number of people polled, the more difficult it is to skew the figures in your favour. You'd have grasped that if you were not bedevilled with the comprehension abilities of a mollusc. Now get back to doing what you do well, if there is anything.

Wrong yet again. You truly are a rival to the legendary Chico.
The size of the sample is not as relevant as it's representativeness and in any case the tried and tested mathematical theory allows you to quantify how representative the sample is and hence how certain you are of the conclusions. Almost all surveys are carried out with a similar sample size and reasonable conclusions can be drawn from small samples. Here is some info, not that I think you'll be capable of understanding it.

http://www.isixsigma.com/library/content/c000709a.asp

Now get back to IT support or programming VB3 or whatever it is you claim to do for a living. And do try to engage brain before typing, won't you?

[shaunbhoy]

The size of the sample is not as relevant as it's representativeness

Quite so. However, I am far from convinced that this poll bothered to go to any trouble to ensure an objective audience was questioned. You gullibly fail to apply such sensible cynicism.
A bit like the way people are sucked into believing the "evidence" portrayed by some GW Computer models.

and in any case the tried and tested mathematical theory allows you to quantify how representative the sample is and hence how certain you are of the conclusions. Almost all surveys are carried out with a similar sample size and reasonable conclusions can be drawn from small samples.

Again, assuming a truly impartial broad-based audience. You really ought to try and refrain from believing everything you are fed.
Spare me the 6 Sigma cobblers. I have worked for Motorola who set their bleeding clocks by it. Wonderful in the right environment but a square peg in a round hole in many other situations.
Now, we done here or are you going to continue babbling with your head patently up your jacksy?

[sasguru]

Quite so. However, I am far from convinced that this poll bothered to go to any trouble to ensure an objective audience was questioned. You gullibly fail to apply such sensible cynicism.
A bit like the way people are sucked into believing the "evidence" portrayed by some GW Computer models.



Again, assuming a truly impartial broad-based audience. You really ought to try and refrain from believing everything you are fed.
Spare me the 6 Sigma cobblers. I have worked for Motorola who set their bleeding clocks by it. Wonderful in the right environment but a square peg in a round hole in many other situations.
Now, we done here or are you going to continue babbling with your head patently up your jacksy?

Nice backtrack there! Given your patent inability to understand even the most basic mathematical and scientific concepts, your commenting on GW is like an illiterate African peasant presuming to describe the mechanics of space flight.

I said nothing about the scientific validity of that particular poll.

Also nice straw man built up with the 6 sigma comment.The info on that page is basic mathematical theory and has nothing to do with 6-sigma, which is indeed bollocks.

If you want a debate on your level, I'm sure there are many teen forums around - although on second thoughts most of them would run rings around you.

[Bagpuss]

Stratification that's what you need

[sasguru]

Stratification that's what you need

Now, now, don't confuse him with long words

[shaunbhoy]

Given your patent inability to understand even the most basic mathematical and scientific concepts, your commenting on GW is like an illiterate African peasant presuming to describe the mechanics of space flight.

My stance on GW and man's culpability are extremely sceptical, and there is a considerable amount of good scientific evidence to support my position. I can see why that is at odds with the conclusions you have been programmed to adhere to though as it does not follow the weary inevitable handwringing guilt-ridden conclusion that suggests the only way we can resolve this issue is by paying ever more "green" tax. So be it, you cannot educate pork!

I said nothing about the scientific validity of that particular poll.

Well that really is the nub of the issue sg. You never really say anything scientifically valid. Just the same tired old circular claptrap. Give it a rest man, you are taking stupidity to new and sinister dimensions.

If you want a debate on your level, I'm sure there are many teen forums around

Yes, I have no doubt you are sure. It appears to be a fertile arena for most of your opinions. Anyway, why take a risk going there when I can stay here and have fun bitchslapping your aimless witterings?

[sasguru]

My stance on GW and man's culpability are extremely sceptical, and there is a considerable amount of good scientific evidence to support my position.

I'll ignore the rest of the pompous, vacuous hot air you spout ( in the inimitably "wannabe posh", bank clerk, lower-middle-class sort of style you espouse) and concentrate on this statement.

1. What is the scientific evidence of which you speak?
2. And given the demonstration of your mathematical and scientific ineptitude on this and other threads, how would you know if it was "good" or not?

[shaunbhoy]

I'll ignore the rest of the pompous, vacuous hot air you spout ( in the inimitably "wannabe posh", bank clerk, lower-middle-class sort of style you espouse) and concentrate on this statement.

1. What is the scientific evidence of which you speak?
2. And given the demonstration of your mathematical and scientific ineptitude on this and other threads, how would you know if it was "good" or not?

So you didn't watch the Great Global Warming Swindle then? How very broadminded of you. Shame, because it was pretty much all covered in there. That said, it was probably on past your bedtime. Do yourself a favour, get hold of a copy of it, it might free your mind from the pre-programmed party line endlessly promoted by the self-perpetuating "scientists" in the carbon camp and the governments that stand to benefit from the inevitable tax hikes that you have bought into hook line and sinker.