Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'l tell you one thing: it's 100% certain that a substantial number of "climate scientists" have deliberately falsified and destroyed data to dramatize their theories about climate change.
But Jon Stewart wants to talk about Fox news -- which is a diversion.
If Stewart had the balls of a butterfly, he'd go after Algore and the East Anglia fraud. But he'd rather suck up to the leftist hyenas who make up his audience.
As it is, Mr. Stewart is doing little more than performing fellatio on the donkey party. Which he no doubt finds....fulfilling.
Fact: They did not copy the mistake, they reported it. Too bad NBC, MSNBC, CBS, and CNN can't remember what a news report is.
Are you serious?
Do you know how many pairs of eyes see such a slide before it goes on the air?
That's okay with you, though.... little mistake here, little accidental slip-up there. Slipshod is all right with you all, as long as it's presented with color and noise.
Never mind that Rasmussen, if they made the error themselves, didnt notify the networks....etc.... oh, forget it.
Do you know how many pairs of eyes see such a slide before it goes on the air?
That's okay with you, though.... little mistake here, little accidental slip-up there. Slipshod is all right with you all, as long as it's presented with color and noise.
Never mind that Rasmussen, if they made the error themselves, didnt notify the networks....etc.... oh, forget it.
No, I have no clue as to how many sets of eyes see a slide prior to something going "on-the-air". How many?
Let's see how many eyes have seen events unfolding prior to history's terrible tragedies, attacks, or mistakes. How many people saw the attack on Pearl Harbor unfolding up to an hour before the first bomb was dropped? How many people saw events unfolding prior to the home market crash? How many people saw but couldn't stop the events leading up to the national tragedy of electing Barack Obama?
I agree with you that we get complacent when people do things in a superior manner, until they make a mistake.
Yes, and some people on this thread don't have the sense to read the perfect quote from Rasmussen that Fox used. It's RASMUSSEN's direct quote here folks.
Well the commentor on the show read the numbers adding them up to 120% and they did not quote the Rasmussen poll, they misquoted the Rasmussen poll. The clip is at the bottom of the page. There is no "at least" in the fox graphic nor was it mentioned by the host. The Rasmussen poll was presented correctly and of course fox misrepresented the results.
There's a growing awareness and concern worldwide that climate change is an issue we need to address.
As delegates gather in Copenhagen for the UN climate summit, a new poll shows growing concern for climate change; nearly two-thirds say climate is “very serious†problem.
I quote from the above referenced report, "Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data."
Silly people. "It's at least likely" means more than one response type was combined and the numbers wouldn't add up to 100 percent. It's not a pie chart. In the 59 percent are all of the "It's very likely" people and the "it's somewhat likely" people. Then the "very likely" people are presented alone. Then the "Not Very likely" and the "Not at all likely" are combined. Jon Stewart is a doof.
Example (not the actual data):
Scientists falsified data:
1. Very likely 35%
2. Somewhat likely 24%
3. Not very likely 15%
4. Not at all likely 11%
5. Undecided 15%
Total 100%
59% say it's at least somewhat likely they falsified data (combines numbers 1 and 2 above)
.
35% say it's very likely (number 1 above by itself)
26% say it's not very or not at all unlikely (combines numbers 3 and 4 above)
Silly people. "It's at least likely" means more than one response type was combined and the numbers wouldn't add up to 100 percent. It's not a pie chart. In the 59 percent are all of the "It's very likely" people and the "it's somewhat likely" people. Then the "very likely" people are presented alone. Then the "Not Very likely" and the "Not at all likely" are combined. Jon Stewart is a doof.
Example (not the actual data):
Scientists falsified data:
1. Very likely 35%
2. Somewhat likely 24%
3. Not very likely 15%
4. Not at all likely 11%
5. Undecided 15%
Total 100%
59% say it's at least somewhat likely they falsified data (combines numbers 1 and 2 above)
.
35% say it's very likely (number 1 above by itself)
26% say it's not very or not at all unlikely (combines numbers 3 and 4 above)
Its obvious you didn't see the report or Stewart's segment because you are basically pointing out what Stewart slammed Fox for.
That 59% of at least somewhat likely, Fox counted just as somewhat likely, and they added the 35% of very likely on top of that. Fox said more than 90% viewed it as likely.
Fox Presented it as
59% Somewhat Likely
35% Very Likely
26% Not at all likely
The terms AT LEAST was not in Fox's report. They used that at least data to present somewhat likely alone. They added at least somewhat likely, and very likely to suggest more than 90% said it was likely.
Its obvious you didn't see the report or Stewart's segment because you are basically pointing out what Stewart slammed Fox for.
That 59% of at least somewhat likely, Fox counted just as somewhat likely, and they added the 35% of very likely on top of that. Fox said more than 90% viewed it as likely.
Fox Presented it as
59% Somewhat Likely
35% Very Likely
26% Not at all likely
The terms AT LEAST was not in Fox's report. They used that at least data to present somewhat likely alone. They added at least somewhat likely, and very likely to suggest more than 90% said it was likely.
You would be right. I saw neither. I was just commenting on the poster's quoted in blue italics material. If I screwed up, I apologize.
No, I have no clue as to how many sets of eyes see a slide prior to something going "on-the-air". How many?
Let's see how many eyes have seen events unfolding prior to history's terrible tragedies, attacks, or mistakes. How many people saw the attack on Pearl Harbor unfolding up to an hour before the first bomb was dropped? How many people saw events unfolding prior to the home market crash? How many people saw but couldn't stop the events leading up to the national tragedy of electing Barack Obama?
I agree with you that we get complacent when people do things in a superior manner, until they make a mistake.
Lol, you're comparing 15 people at Faux and who knows how many at Rasmussen not stopping that slide from getting onto the air, to PEARL HARBOR?!
You would be right. I saw neither. I was just commenting on the poster's quoted in blue italics material. If I screwed up, I apologize.
Apology accepted, but with all due respect why are you calling Stewart a doof without even looking at the video?
Fox presented a report in which they counted at least somewhat likely (which is somewhat likely and very likely) as just somewhat likely, and decided to add the very likely on top of that. Stewart called them out on it. The OP comes running to Fox's defense and slammed Stewart by showing the link to the Rasmussen poll because the OP much like FOX couldn't grasp what at least meant either. You correctly point out that at least somewhat likely was somewhat likely + very likely, but decide to take a cheap shop at Stewart when he was the one who pointed out how Fox "presented" this poll in the 1st place.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
