More metadata on man-made climate change

[TradeNurkicNow]

OMG! Debate is happening in public in a "democracy!"

pretty great ain't it?

 

[Denny Crane]

I found the Harris Poll. 1001 registered voters randomly dialed.

Here is the question asked (among others):

Canada has over 170 Billion barrels of oil underground. A pipeline – the Keystone XL pipeline – has been proposed to help bring more of that Canadian oil into the U.S. for use in American refineries. Do you [ROTATE: support/oppose] or [ROTATE: oppose/support] the building of the Keystone XL pipeline?

 

[Denny Crane]

You really think polls reflect what people "really want"? You really think polls can report on the subtlety of any argument, especially one with so many ramifications to so many pieces of a larger puzzle?

Sorry, not buying it.



http://keystone-xl.com/about/energy-security/

I think polls are far better than deciding based on how one guy's sphincter twitches.

 

[Denny Crane]

And your link doesn't say what you think it does.

 

[bluefrog]

I think it's interesting that the study showed most papers took no position on AGW. This flies in the face of dumb ass arguments like "follow the money". Many people have asserted that climate scientists are out to prove AGW to get grant funding or to take down the American economy.

Scientists just want to understand the climate better.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I think polls are far better than deciding based on how one guy's sphincter twitches.

So they're the second worst way of discovering public opinion. Good enough.

And your link doesn't say what you think it does.

The pipeline? I think it transports oil from point A to point B.

 

[Denny Crane]

hoojacks,

I actually respect you and your posts quite a bit, but find these recent ones to be out of the ordinary.

If you would say that the EPA or Dept. of Interior decided it was in the best interests of The People, polls be damned, I couldn't argue. If you would say Obama was throwing some red meat to his ecology constituents, I wouldn't argue.

I just really find it odd that someone could assert (that means without supporting evidence) that the people want some policy when the polls clearly show otherwise.

As far as PR goes, the administration has virtually the entire media machinery plus the bully pulpit plus hundreds of congress people plus countless cabinet members and other appointees to get their side out. Like I said, the debate is public, the ideas that make sense to most people, framed best as each side can for their cause, win.

On top of all the machinery available to both sides, the govt. is so vast that if they used every dollar of last year's deficit to buy oil stocks, the govt. would own outright the top five oil companies in the world: Exxon Mobil, Petro China, Chevron, Petrobas, and BP. It's hard to argue they don't have the money to hire whoever they want to get their word out as well.

Peace

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I'll just go ahead and bring in your post from the other thread.

You going to tell us those polled really meant to answer something else? That there's some nuance that makes their answers invalid?

No, I think they answered the yes or no question to the best of their ability. The question is, do they know what they're talking about? The only information we know they got about the pipeline is from the poll.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'll just go ahead and bring in your post from the other thread.



No, I think they answered the yes or no question to the best of their ability. The question is, do they know what they're talking about? The only information we know they got about the pipeline is from the poll.

The Pew poll is of people who have followed the news about the pipeline.

Next?

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Denny,

I don't trust polls.

salaam.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

The Pew poll is of people who have followed the news about the pipeline.

Next?

Was it? According to Pew's website, it was:

...based on telephone interviews conducted March 13-17, 2013, among a national sample of 1,501 adults, 18 years of age or older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia (750 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 751 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 385 who had no landline telephone). The survey was conducted by Abt SRBI. A combination of landline and cell phone random digit dial samples were used; both samples were provided by Survey Sampling International. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. Respondents in the landline sample were selected by randomly asking for the youngest adult male or female who is now at home. Interviews in the cell sample were conducted with the person who answered the phone, if that person was an adult 18 years of age or older.

 

[Denny Crane]

Was it? According to Pew's website, it was:

Sorry, it was one of the polls. I looked about about 6 of them all showed roughly the same level of support, regardless of who paid for the poll to be performed.

Even the GREEN pages at HuffPost agree with me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/keystone-xl-pipeline-poll-2013_n_3009120.html

And if you can't trust the polls, who do you trust? Should we appoint a king?

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Sorry, it was one of the polls. I looked about about 6 of them all showed roughly the same level of support, regardless of who paid for the poll to be performed.

Even the GREEN pages at HuffPost agree with me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/keystone-xl-pipeline-poll-2013_n_3009120.html

And if you can't trust the polls, who do you trust? Should we appoint a king?

I don't disagree that polls show that people do or do not think a certain way. I can even admit the validity of the king of the voodoo sciences, statistics (that which gives polls any merit). But 1000 random people representing the whole of the nation? Color me skeptical.

So how to discover public opinion? I'm much more for academic study. But that of course takes time. It all depends on why you need the information. To muster just enough political support in order to push through a controversial construction project? Polls work great for that. Longitudinal sociological research, not so much.

I just don't see why these obviously very complex issues have to be boiled down to dialing random phone numbers and feeding the results into an algorithm. There are real people (and animals, but they don't count obviously) that this project would have negative effects on. But, 650 out of 1000 random people dialed "yes" so the project must go forth?

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't disagree that polls show that people do or do not think a certain way. I can even admit the validity of the king of the voodoo sciences, statistics (that which gives polls any merit). But 1000 random people representing the whole of the nation? Color me skeptical.

So how to discover public opinion? I'm much more for academic study. But that of course takes time. It all depends on why you need the information. To muster just enough political support in order to push through a controversial construction project? Polls work great for that. Longitudinal sociological research, not so much.

I just don't see why these obviously very complex issues have to be boiled down to dialing random phone numbers and feeding the results into an algorithm. There are real people (and animals, but they don't count obviously) that this project would have negative effects on. But, 650 out of 1000 random people dialed "yes" so the project must go forth?

I guess you don't like my links, but I'm going to give you one anyway.

Statistically, polling slightly over 1000 people gets you a margin of error of +/- 3%. As if you polled the entire population.

So take that 80% figure or 66% figure or whatever and subtract 3% and you get 63% best case in your favor. I showed you the question they asked so you can judge for yourself if it somehow influenced the person to answer one way or another.

http://www.stats.org/faq_margin.htm

I'm in California, far away from the pipeline. Yet because I am taxed to pay for the welfare and food stamps for people who live right where that pipeline should be built, I really should have a say. Right?

Like I said a few posts ago, you argued that the people don't want the pipeline. They do by any objective measure.

But the will of the people isn't in question here. The administration has done everything it can to delay or cancel the project, and it looks to me like for no good reason. So when the administration or congress has this kind of power over many $billions of economic activity, why shouldn't those who can (are willing to) make this infrastructure project happen (at their own expense!, take the risk and make the profit), lobby the administration to come to their senses?

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I guess you don't like my links, but I'm going to give you one anyway.

Statistically, polling slightly over 1000 people gets you a margin of error of +/- 3%. As if you polled the entire population.

So take that 80% figure or 66% figure or whatever and subtract 3% and you get 63% best case in your favor. I showed you the question they asked so you can judge for yourself if it somehow influenced the person to answer one way or another.

http://www.stats.org/faq_margin.htm

That's how it's supposed to work, right? Extrapolate the results and it's "as if you polled the entire nation." I don't think it is. I think it's virtually impossible to poll a representative sample, especially not in 1000 people, as humans and what they think are infinitely more complex than the partisan lines that we are categorized in. This has been my opinion when people talk about public opinion polls in the Middle East as well. This is why I would advocate for academic research (laughable, I know) to investigate public opinion.

I'm in California, far away from the pipeline. Yet because I am taxed to pay for the welfare and food stamps for people who live right where that pipeline should be built, I really should have a say. Right?

I don't think so.

Like I said a few posts ago, you argued that the people don't want the pipeline. They do by any objective measure.

Not by any objective measure, just the ones we have limited ourselves to. I have no fix for this. I am a unrealistic radical when it comes to politics.

But the will of the people isn't in question here. The administration has done everything it can to delay or cancel the project, and it looks to me like for no good reason. So when the administration or congress has this kind of power over many $billions of economic activity, why shouldn't those who can (are willing to) make this infrastructure project happen (at their own expense!, take the risk and make the profit), lobby the administration to come to their senses?

Corporations lobbying the government to get what they want isn't "the will of the people" either. It's the influence of a wealthy few.

Imagine if the specific counties in which this pipeline would pass through got to vote yes or no on it... and the project would only green light if it was unanimous. Would it pass?

 

[Denny Crane]

That's how it's supposed to work, right? Extrapolate the results and it's "as if you polled the entire nation." I don't think it is. I think it's virtually impossible to poll a representative sample, especially not in 1000 people, as humans and what they think are infinitely more complex than the partisan lines that we are categorized in. This has been my opinion when people talk about public opinion polls in the Middle East as well. This is why I would advocate for academic research (laughable, I know) to investigate public opinion.



I don't think so.



Not by any objective measure, just the ones we have limited ourselves to. I have no fix for this. I am a unrealistic radical when it comes to politics.



Corporations lobbying the government to get what they want isn't "the will of the people" either. It's the influence of a wealthy few.

Imagine if the specific counties in which this pipeline would pass through got to vote yes or no on it... and the project would only green light if it was unanimous. Would it pass?

I know you're very wrong about the math behind polling. There isn't an extrapolation going on. The math is what it is. Accurate to +/- 3%. So accurate that lefties want to do a poll instead of an actual census as required by the constitution.

I absolutely have a vested interest in low unemployment, high GDP, etc. they're already wanting to tax the rich more and more. It's not hard to see they'll be coming after you and me when that source of money is tapped. Thus people employed for the pipeline absolutely affects me.

Corporations are mostly owned by institutions. Those would be 401K owned by working people. There's the pin that pops that bubble.

Unanimous? That's an utterly ridiculous standard. How about we don't elect Obama unless the vote is unanimous - equally silly.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I know you're very wrong about the math behind polling. There isn't an extrapolation going on. The math is what it is. Accurate to +/- 3%. So accurate that lefties want to do a poll instead of an actual census as required by the constitution.

I'll be the first to admit that my math is never correct. I've been googling trying to find a layman's explanation of how polling 1000 people (assuming it's a perfect sample) can reliably represent 314 million. I'd appreciate if you could link me to an article.

I absolutely have a vested interest in low unemployment, high GDP, etc. they're already wanting to tax the rich more and more. It's not hard to see they'll be coming after you and me when that source of money is tapped. Thus people employed for the pipeline absolutely affects me.

I don't think your slippery slope argument has much sway with the people this pipeline would actually affect, right now, today, in ways other than vague paranoia about "they're coming after me" next.

Corporations are mostly owned by institutions. Those would be 401K owned by working people. There's the pin that pops that bubble.

How many of those "working people" get to decide what the lobbyists focus on in DC?

Unanimous? That's an utterly ridiculous standard. How about we don't elect Obama unless the vote is unanimous - equally silly.

So it wouldn't pass. Would you agree that some people have a legitimate reason to not want the XL pipeline built?

 

[Denny Crane]

I'll be the first to admit that my math is never correct. I've been googling trying to find a layman's explanation of how polling 1000 people (assuming it's a perfect sample) can reliably represent 314 million. I'd appreciate if you could link me to an article.

http://stats.stackexchange.com/ques...e-sample-size-when-polling-a-large-population

One of the posts includes the detailed math. The rest are pretty good in layman's terms.

I don't think your slippery slope argument has much sway with the people this pipeline would actually affect, right now, today, in ways other than vague paranoia about "they're coming after me" next.

What slippery slope argument? It's a slam dunk, 100% sure thing that I have a vested interest in the nation's GDP being higher, lower unemployment, etc. As long as I'm paying taxes, some of it pays for government's failures.

How many of those "working people" get to decide what the lobbyists focus on in DC?

Who cares? The whole point of a corporation is to socialize its purpose, risk, and reward. The lobbyists do what's good for the shareholders or the company goes under. How many working people got to decide about passing ObamaCare? LOL.

So it wouldn't pass. Would you agree that some people have a legitimate reason to not want the XL pipeline built?

Sure. There are people that think the end of the world will happen if the pipeline is built. No accounting for paranoia and other kinds of just "out there" thinking.

 

[Denny Crane]

Oil and Gas companies combined spent a tad more than the Chamber of Commerce.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2012&indexType=s


Oil and Gas is the fifth ranked industry in Lobbying expenses. Not that much more than the entertainment industry, Internet companies, etc.

The really big money bought us ObamaCare.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=i&showYear=2012

 

[MarAzul]

The metadata hasn't changed at all! You have to keep your eye on the ball.

1. We have had a prominent democrat flying around at will, using more carbon than any of us observers will in our life time, shouting like chicken little about Global Warming and then Climate Change. While buying Carbon Credit investments.

2. Then we have the messiah like leader of the democrats pushing more taxes on us observers. Carbon Taxes to prevent us from using energy (err, collect more for more justice).

Have you ever seen a democrat that didn't want another tax? Man you need to know it takes a ton of tax to keep a 747 warm and ready to take you and yours off to the next destination without regard to the carbon foot print (or the deficit). A real messiah can't be constricted by concerns intended for common men. Nor should he be constrained by a pesky Bill of Rights amended to the Constitution, the oath of office to protect these things is easy to ignore for a messiah. All he need do is mention common sense.

The Dinosaurs' are dead! Global Cooling probably did it, the result of the atmosphere full of debris after a super meteor strike. From what I read, it was much warmer in Dino's day than it is today. Heck, I guess it was warmer when the Vikings settled Greenland over a 1000 years ago. In the past few years enough ice has melted on Greenland to allow people to see some of the sites where Viking settlement once had real Vikings before the a cooling age froze them out.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

http://stats.stackexchange.com/ques...e-sample-size-when-polling-a-large-population

One of the posts includes the detailed math. The rest are pretty good in layman's terms.

All right, those are the stats. Still doesn't convince me that there's any way to get a truly representative sample. Again, literature is welcomed on this.

What slippery slope argument?

This one:

...they're already wanting to tax the rich more and more. It's not hard to see they'll be coming after you and me when that source of money is tapped

I'm sorry, things would probably blow up long before we got done tapping out the "resource" of taxes on the rich. We've got a long way to go.

It's a slam dunk, 100% sure thing that I have a vested interest in the nation's GDP being higher, lower unemployment, etc. As long as I'm paying taxes, some of it pays for government's failures.

So you really think you should have say over other people's lives because the government used your tax money to give them social services? Why not just move to a "patriot commune" in Idaho and get it over with?

Who cares?

Probably all the employees of the company that get zero say in the matter?

The whole point of a corporation is to socialize its purpose, risk, and reward. The lobbyists do what's good for the shareholders or the company goes under.

Good for the shareholders != good for the people who are employed by the corporation. Sometimes the lobbyists does whats good for the shareholders and the company still goes under (as long as everyone on the inside gets a golden parachute.)

How many working people got to decide about passing ObamaCare? LOL.

Why does that matter here?

Sure. There are people that think the end of the world will happen if the pipeline is built. No accounting for paranoia and other kinds of just "out there" thinking.

Thanks for dismissing any and all criticism of the pipeline as "paranoia" and "out there" thinking. Jeez, get some perspective dude.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

The metadata hasn't changed at all! You have to keep your eye on the ball.

1. We have had a prominent democrat flying around at will, using more carbon than any of us observers will in our life time, shouting like chicken little about Global Warming and then Climate Change. While buying Carbon Credit investments.

2. Then we have the messiah like leader of the democrats pushing more taxes on us observers. Carbon Taxes to prevent us from using energy (err, collect more for more justice).

Have you ever seen a democrat that didn't want another tax? Man you need to know it takes a ton of tax to keep a 747 warm and ready to take you and yours off to the next destination without regard to the carbon foot print (or the deficit). A real messiah can't be constricted by concerns intended for common men. Nor should he be constrained by a pesky Bill of Rights amended to the Constitution, the oath of office to protect these things is easy to ignore for a messiah. All he need do is mention common sense.

The Dinosaurs' are dead! Global Cooling probably did it, the result of the atmosphere full of debris after a super meteor strike. From what I read, it was much warmer in Dino's day than it is today. Heck, I guess it was warmer when the Vikings settled Greenland over a 1000 years ago. In the past few years enough ice has melted on Greenland to allow people to see some of the sites where Viking settlement once had real Vikings before the a cooling age froze them out.

There might have been a good point or two in all this snark, but it was lost in all the 'messiah'-talk bullshit and nonsensical topic flow. Try again?

 

[MarAzul]

There might have been a good point or two in all this snark, but it was lost in all the 'messiah'-talk bullshit and nonsensical topic flow. Try again?

Perhaps a democrat?

 

[Denny Crane]

All right, those are the stats. Still doesn't convince me that there's any way to get a truly representative sample. Again, literature is welcomed on this.



This one:



I'm sorry, things would probably blow up long before we got done tapping out the "resource" of taxes on the rich. We've got a long way to go.



So you really think you should have say over other people's lives because the government used your tax money to give them social services? Why not just move to a "patriot commune" in Idaho and get it over with?




Probably all the employees of the company that get zero say in the matter?



Good for the shareholders != good for the people who are employed by the corporation. Sometimes the lobbyists does whats good for the shareholders and the company still goes under (as long as everyone on the inside gets a golden parachute.)



Why does that matter here?



Thanks for dismissing any and all criticism of the pipeline as "paranoia" and "out there" thinking. Jeez, get some perspective dude.

First of all, I didn't dismiss your criticism of the pipeline as anything. You asked if there was possibly ONE person in the universe who might vote against the pipeline and I gave you the slam dunk example.

The employees of a company like Exxon have both stock options and stock purchase plans, as well as 401K plans. They are the shareholders of the company, just as anyone who has a 401K that is likely invested in Exxon.

You seem to have an issue with mathematics:

1) How the math and probability behind surveys work. The government uses them to figure out unemployment rates (they call a sample of people and ask them if they're out of work). The government wants even less than the +/- 3% margin of error, so they survey 60,000 (out of several millions of) households.

2) Then you dismiss the coming fiscal challenge facing the government as some sort of "patriot commune" kind of thinking; only the math challenged can deny what has to come of the massive debts we're running up the past several years. The payments for interest on the debt is going to cost so much of the government's revenues, they're going to have to raise taxes just to pay that and some minimal amount of other services. They're going to have to raise taxes to cover the baby boomers' payments for SS and medicare, too.

3) The claim we can tax the rich only to cover it all. The numbers are so huge the government may have to double its income. To do that, they have to double everyone's taxes. If the rich are already paying > 50%, you can't double their taxes because you'd be taxing them > 100%. Your anticapitalist belief system may make that a "good idea," but they will stop working altogether and you'll get $0 and force even more of the burden on everyone else.

Then there's the tricky part of the "everyone" in "double everyone's taxes." That means you and me and everyone else.

To go along with the anticapitalst theme... we have socialized the welfare of the people to such a degree that it absolutely matters to me what happens far away from me. I don't at all suggest forcing my will over anyone else as you suggest. It would be forcing one's will to prevent the pipeline from being built against the peoples' wishes. I think you need to look in the mirror.

You ask about how polling companies get their representative samples. There is a plethora of WWW pages that discuss how it's done. The thing is, if they're random dialing as they claim, there's no way they're off by the 30% to suit your world view.

Peace

 

[MarAzul]

"They will quit working"

Absolutely Denny. Prior to Reagan we had a Federal tax rate of up to 70%. I found myself in the 67% bracket in the course of the year once. I shut down every damn thing I could and deferred any income that I could.

67% fed, 15% federal self employment tax, 11% State income tax. Holy damn, it is totally discouraging. Anyone that advocates such a system need only experience it once to feel the pain.
You won't like it!

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Perhaps a democrat?

Nope.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Denny, I suppose I deserve to get called an anticapitalist since I made the patriot commune comment. I think this is a good place to leave the argument and pick it up another time. In the mean time, I'm going to do a little reading about polls. Thanks for the mental exercise

 

[Denny Crane]

Denny, I suppose I deserve to get called an anticapitalist since I made the patriot commune comment. I think this is a good place to leave the argument and pick it up another time. In the mean time, I'm going to do a little reading about polls. Thanks for the mental exercise

Sure.

But the anticapitalist remark is in response to your rhetoric in general. Golden parachutes, workers aren't shareholders, unanimous vote, etc.

It is what it is.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Sure.

But the anticapitalist remark is in response to your rhetoric in general. Golden parachutes, workers aren't shareholders, unanimous vote, etc.

It is what it is.

One can criticize what you perceive to be that system's failures without being against that system in its entirety.

With that being said:
1. Are golden parachutes a thing that an ardent capitalist (such as yourself?) would actually argue for?
2. Me saying workers aren't shareholders and being incorrect doesn't mean I'm against capitalism, it just shows that I don't know enough about how corporations are structured... but surely even ardent capitalists can look at cases where major corporations fail, the top brass make off with millions, their employees get screwed and say, "Something is wrong here" (unless that never happens.)
3. The unanimous vote comment was for a thought exercise. I wouldn't push for such a thing.

 

[Denny Crane]

One can criticize what you perceive to be that system's failures without being against that system in its entirety.

With that being said:
1. Are golden parachutes a thing that an ardent capitalist (such as yourself?) would actually argue for?
2. Me saying workers aren't shareholders and being incorrect doesn't mean I'm against capitalism, it just shows that I don't know enough about how corporations are structured... but surely even ardent capitalists can look at cases where major corporations fail, the top brass make off with millions, their employees get screwed and say, "Something is wrong here" (unless that never happens.)
3. The unanimous vote comment was for a thought exercise. I wouldn't push for such a thing.

I don't think much of the golden parachute. I see it as a no trade clause or player option in a basketball contract. A thing to entice talent to sign. I don't see it as a means to loot the company, but a means of making it painful to fire the CEO or other top executive. An "exit" or big payday in the end is what entrepreneurs look for.

Those are the reasons they exist. If you want to entice a Google exec to leave a great position to take the CEO job of JC Penny's, which needs a serious turnaround or it will fail, you have to make it worthwhile.

And I think the CEO wants to collect a big paycheck and other compensation rather than the golden parachute. The latter means failure.