Dishonesty of the Trump cult: Polls edition

[exGOPer]

One of the cult's friendly non-fake news sources did a poll on the cult's latest talking point.

This is the key question of the poll

"
In the IBD/TIPP survey of public opinion, we asked respondents "How closely are you following news stories about the role played by the FBI and the Department of Justice during the 2016 presidential election?" Of those who responded, 72% said they were following the story either "very closely" (39%) or "somewhat closely" (33%). Our responses were taken only from those who were following the story closely.

Some 55% of those said it was "likely" that the Obama administration "improperly surveilled the Trump campaign during the 2016 election." There was an obvious partisan split among the responses, with 87% of Republicans and 55% of independents saying the improper spying took place, but only 31% of Democrats."

https://www.investors.com/politics/...p-campaign-want-special-counsel-ibdtipp-poll/

Notice, responses were taken only from those who were following the story closely.

But the lying dishonest cult couldn't even be bothered to do the math for such a simple poll.

Truepundit reports it as

Poll: Americans ‘Overwhelmingly’ Believe Obama ‘Improperly Surveilled’ Trump Campaign

https://truepundit.com/poll-america...e-obama-improperly-surveilled-trump-campaign/

This fake news source even managed to sound sanctimonious

"Despite the disgraced American media’s best and most cynical efforts to bury the truth, and to even stop the truth from ever seeing the light of day"

Ha!

Breitbart is reporting it as

Poll: Americans 'Overwhelmingly' Believe Obama 'Improperly Surveilled' Trump Campaign - Breitbart
An IBD/TIPP poll shows that "Americans overwhelmingly believe the Obama administration 'improperly surveilled' Donald Trump's presidential campaign."

Notice their subtle word change? If you decide to only report part of the responses then you can easily call it overwhelmingly. In their world a 50% of the 70% is 'majority'.

What a shameless lying cult we have here, no wonder the dumbest of the dumb call themselves conservatives.

 

[Slartibartfast]

One of the cult's friendly non-fake news sources did a poll on the cult's latest talking point.

This is the key question of the poll

"
In the IBD/TIPP survey of public opinion, we asked respondents "How closely are you following news stories about the role played by the FBI and the Department of Justice during the 2016 presidential election?" Of those who responded, 72% said they were following the story either "very closely" (39%) or "somewhat closely" (33%). Our responses were taken only from those who were following the story closely.

Some 55% of those said it was "likely" that the Obama administration "improperly surveilled the Trump campaign during the 2016 election." There was an obvious partisan split among the responses, with 87% of Republicans and 55% of independents saying the improper spying took place, but only 31% of Democrats."

https://www.investors.com/politics/...p-campaign-want-special-counsel-ibdtipp-poll/

Notice, responses were taken only from those who were following the story closely.

But the lying dishonest cult couldn't even be bothered to do the math for such a simple poll.

Truepundit reports it as

Poll: Americans ‘Overwhelmingly’ Believe Obama ‘Improperly Surveilled’ Trump Campaign

https://truepundit.com/poll-america...e-obama-improperly-surveilled-trump-campaign/

This fake news source even managed to sound sanctimonious

"Despite the disgraced American media’s best and most cynical efforts to bury the truth, and to even stop the truth from ever seeing the light of day"

Ha!

Breitbart is reporting it as

Poll: Americans 'Overwhelmingly' Believe Obama 'Improperly Surveilled' Trump Campaign - Breitbart
An IBD/TIPP poll shows that "Americans overwhelmingly believe the Obama administration 'improperly surveilled' Donald Trump's presidential campaign."

Notice their subtle word change? If you decide to only report part of the responses then you can easily call it overwhelmingly. In their world a 50% of the 70% is 'majority'.

What a shameless lying cult we have here, no wonder the dumbest of the dumb call themselves conservatives.

You are getting good, I hope you are sharpening your claws for arguments on a bigger stage than ET

 

[Slartibartfast]

Sometimes I am reminded of when I was trained to snipe down in Louisiana. My instructor had a strobe and no matter how super human a guy was, the damned thing was nearly impossible to dismiss even with hours of insane-making practice. I you ever saw the movie "Kick Ass" you know a little of what I mean.

During the last test he put a green filter on the strobe. Nobody hit the target.

If the Trump admin and party continue with these hacks into the hard-wiring of us naked apes they just need to keep altering the assault faster than the mind can adapt.

I just don't know, perhaps the bad guys have won.

 

[exGOPer]

Sometimes I am reminded of when I was trained to snipe down in Louisiana. My instructor had a strobe and no matter how super human a guy was, the damned thing was nearly impossible to dismiss even with hours of insane-making practice. I you ever saw the movie "Kick Ass" you know a little of what I mean.

During the last test he put a green filter on the strobe. Nobody hit the target.

If the Trump admin and party continue with these hacks into the hard-wiring of us naked apes they just need to keep altering the assault faster than the mind can adapt.

I just don't know, perhaps the bad guys have won.

Think about this, there is not a SINGLE piece of evidence that Obama even surveiled anyone in the Trump campaign, Trump's own DOJ said that.

But their cult believes 'overwhelmingly' that Obama actually even surveiled them.

How can you argue with people who are not grounded in reality? They believe what they want to believe and then create 'news' to reinforce it. Then they call the media 'biased' for not going along with their fake news!

 

[jem]

You seem to be the first lefties on this site who recognize that taking a cherry picked subset of a poll is does not result in a honest headline. Nice work.

now lets examine the origins of the famed 97 percent consensus.
a web based 10,000 surveys sent out to earth scientists
3,146 answers

so how did the doran zimmerman study find a 97 percent consensus that man contributes to warming? (note this is not saying man made co2 caues warming")

by picking a subset of what you might call "true believers".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures had generally risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. 76 out of the 79 respondents who "listed climate science as their area of expertise, and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change", thought that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Of those 79 scientists, 75 out of the 77 answered that human activity was a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures, a sample size which would result in a margin of error of 11 percentage points. The remaining two were not asked, because in question one they responded that temperatures had remained relatively constant. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent respectively thinking that human activity was a significant contributing factor. In summary, Doran and Zimmerman wrote:

 

[exGOPer]

by picking a subset of what you might call "true believers".

This is a joke right? The subset was of 'climate scientists' - you know those who actually study the subject instead of regular PhDs. If the issue was about heart transplantation, should a PhD in aerospace engineering get the same weight as a heart specialist? Is a heart specialist a true believer because he studied his field as opposed to say a PhD in Kantian philosophy?

Give me a yes or no answer.

 

[jem]

no...

you have misrepresented the subset and how the subset was filtered or "cherry picked".

This is a joke right? The subset was of 'climate scientists' - you know those who actually study the subject instead of regular PhDs. If the issue was about heart transfusion, should a PhD in aerospace engineering get the same weight as a heart specialist? Is a heart specialist a true believer because he studied his field as opposed to say a PhD in Kantian philosophy?

Give me a yes or no answer.

 

[exGOPer]

no...
you have misrepresented the subset.

lets start by first defining what a climate scientist is?

I hope you realize that one of the "softest" degrees in climate science is climatology. Many of the other fields in climate science involve hard science and are far more rigorous.

You obviously didn't read the paper.

The 'definition' of a climate scientist was someone who published a peer reviewed paper on the subject, aka active climate scientist.

It's a very relevant and to the point definition, if you have not published then you are not rigorous at all, scientists for name only were excluded and you are upset about this?

 

[jem]

and how many climate scientists were excluded from that group of 77 or 79 but had answered the survey?
and how many of those publications were true believer journals.

its a very relevant set of questions which must be answered if you are going to cherry pick a subset of a survey of 10,000.

You obviously didn't read the paper.

The 'definition' of a climate scientist was someone who published a peer reviewed paper on the subject, aka active climate scientist.

It's a very relevant and to the point definition, if you have not published then you are not rigorous at all, scientists for name only were excluded and you are upset about this?

 

[exGOPer]

and how many climate scientists were excluded from that group of 77 or 79 but had answered the survey?

and how many of those publications were true believer journals.

its a very relevant set of questions which must be answered if you are going to try and cherry pick a subset of a survey of 10,000.

Nobody was excluded.

They were simply asked - if you are a climate scientist AND you have worked in the field by publishing a paper, what is your view on climate change.

And what is this 'true believer' journal bullshit? You do know that there are more than Doran's study on the consensus issue? And even assuming only 77% believe in the hypothesis, that's still a huge majority.

No matter how you slice and dice the survey, a clear majority believes in climate change - your entire argument is to the severity of their beliefs, not the actual hypothesis.