Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Does anyone know any good websites on TSD. I'm writing a dissertation on the subject, and really need a comprehensive list of all species known to exhibit TSD. I've got a vague idea of some species (all crocodilians, marine turtles, some geckoes/agamids/monitors etc.). Anyone an expert on the subject? Any suggestions for an exciting new approach e.g. conservation, global warming, links with longevity etc. Any ideas why some species still exhibit TSD - I can't see that it is beneficial. I've already spent several hours/days trawling the internet, so any new inspiration would be great!

1) It is beneficial for genetic mixing in certain circumstances. Consider this: 2 females lay eggs. One lays it's eggs in a shady area (cooler), another in a sunny area (warmer). When these eggs hatch and the animals grow up to be a mating age, (There is then a drought, and all the adults of this species die.) the males and the females from these 2 nests must have different mothers, which is sort of a forced "non-inbreeding". (the drought example was just to make this more obvious.) If the original adults mated over many years (producing many clutches), and it took years for the babies to grow up to breeding age, it would have less of an impact. On the other hand, if each nest had both males and female in each clutch, it would be much more likely that there would be a brother X sister mating. (assuming males and females mature at the same rate.)

2) A species lays eggs over many months (like leopard geckos). (spring thru fall). The eggs laid in the spring (cooler) are females that can reach breeding age prior to winter coming. (for maximum breeding production of this species). Males will be produced in the summer (hotter) and be ready to breed the following year. More females again in fall. The fall females won't be breeding until the following year (possibly preventing them from breeding too young and getting egg bound). On the other hand, if not tds, you would get males and females born early and then there could also be a female shortage since males may mature earlier/females born later may die during egg laying, etc. )reducing maximum production for the species)

I wouldn't even consider global warming! You are talking about very small temp. changes over many decades. When you consider that most reptiles (that I am familiar with) have a 10 degree range between all males or all females, and the amount of temp. differences being influenced by laying site, global warming (if it exists) would be so insignificant that it wouldn't be a factor. Not to mention that the earth has been cooling for the last 20 years, and there have been significantly larger temp. changes in the past that these animals all survived.
There is a known 20 degree temp. change that occured in just 50 years once! (I forgot the exact date, but I am sure you can find it.) and now we are talking about a couple of degrees in 100 years---maybe---until the UN counsil revises it's computer model again!

Rodney

Thanks for the enlightening reply - the whole TSD concept now seems to make a little more sense, if seasons and genetic diversity are considered. I am working closely with a doctor who studies climatic change and he is under the impression that global warming is becoming far more significant than you imply. Your point on the fact that these species have already withstood increased temperatures though suggests that they may be able to do so again. This is something that I will definitely have to look at.

Thanks for all the useful info. Any idea of a good source which will tell me the 'age' of various TSD species (ie. how long they have been on the planet??)

I don't have any good sources on this, but I'd look into crockodiles if I were you.

They have been around for a very long time, they are territorial and have a large territory, (so you have one male male mating with multiple females in a given territory, so the "different female" genetic mixing is probably more important than some other species, they are a tds species.)

Check this out on global warming--it's summarized so it's short.

http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/1998-07/msg00073.html

I'd ask your doctor friend why a computor model, that tries to predict future temps., based on temps. of just 99 points of the globe is accurate? Why it is being changed every few years, as they deiced to change the computer model? Since it has been changed so many times, why would you have faith in it not being changed many more times, to somthing else(like cooling instead)? I'd also ask why this theory contradicts satellite computations that are known data over the last 20 years? Or why you can't plug in known historical temps. into the computer model and get todays temps.? (the computer model is flawed because there are too many variables that it doesn't take into account, and that we don't even know about.)

I used to be computer programmer, and that is what they do. Plug in data and try to get a certain result. If you don't get the right result, you have to figure out why and then "fix" the program and try it again. The program must return the desired results with all sets of data that you input. The global warming computer model can't even do this with known historical data, so how can we have faith in the results it gives us for the future? It's like a psychic that can tell you about the future but can't tell you about the past.--think about that one!

Rodney

Hi Rodney

I'm not too sure what his take on the whole computer model concept is - I don't think it is on this that his knowledge is based, but I also don't recall him telling me that the concept of global warming is set in stone. As far as the UK goes (which is where I am), then we will probably experience a decrease in temperature due to an alteration in the flow of the gulf stream from mexico, so as you say, there is a lot more to it than a few data points and a mathematical model. I didn't realise what I was letting myself in for when I started to consider climate - I shall certainly be quizing my supervisor on the whole global warming issue (it's a good idea to approach the subject critically!). Anyway, if you have any more inspired thoughts on TSD then let me know - they've all been useful so far.

Regards

Roz

Glad I could help, good luck on your project, and I couldn't agree more!--more scepticism is needed everywhere!

Frankly, I don't know if global warming is happening or not, but I haven't found any good evidence that supports it over global cooling. It really irks me when it is consistently represented as fact by the media over here, when it is no more than a theory. I really hate it when the media misleads the public, as many people will blindly believe what they hear, without even looking into it.-- especially when they hear it again and again, night after night, on the local television news. The TV news shouldn't be in the business of forming public opinion, and neither should our public schools.

Rodney

rodney said:
"The TV news shouldn't be in the business of forming public opinion, and neither should our public schools."

Heavens no rodney - we wouldn't want public schools forming public opinion!

If you were wondering how reliable rodney's input might be, just take a look at how he spells crocodile (CROCKodile) as in crock o' sh!t.

Seriously guy - do your own literature search in peer-reviewed journals. Don't embarass yourself by relating anything rodney has told you here. He's really full of poop.

Among other things he has stated here:

Global warming happens mostly at night. (He actually said this)
The environemental movement is a communist plot
The vast majority of scientists don't even believe global warming is happening.
etc, etc.

Not much credibility left, huh?

Global warming happens mostly at night. (He actually said this)
The environmental movement is a communist plot
The vast majority of scientists don't even believe global warming is happening.
etc, etc.

Wrong 3 more times!--but still trying to mislead the public I see!--by taking things out of context. I'll correct you yet again. I wish I knew what the etc., etc. was referring to, so I could correct you on that as well. (I assume you are hoping that eventually I will tire of this and let your lies stand?)

The first statement was made by a number of environmental scientists from the heads of environmental departments at major universities during a 20/20 show on environmental frauds. I wish I had their names, but the show ran years ago and I do not have a tape of it. I can tell you they were major Universities like Harvard, Cambridge, Princeton, etc. I remember that as well as what they were saying. I did not say this, I merely relayed it. I believe my post stated that is where I heard it also.--There's a big difference in saying I saw this on 20/20 from environmental scientists at major Universities, and simply saying it myself.--It related to the "island effect", or "urban sprawl". The quote was more along the lines of "The data shows that most of the warming effect occurs both at night and during the winter, not during hotter periods, which supports the urban sprawl corrupting the land based temp. measurements. This leads to an increased growing season which allows for much more agricultural food production, an important thing if you live in a cold climate that has a very short growing season."---I mentioned this because it was in direct opposition to what that incredibly intelligent scientist Al Gore was saying. (I tend to believe real scientists over politicians in matters of science, pulatus appears to believe in politicians over scientists--assuming those politicians also agree with his point of view!)

Second statement was a question I asked and you repeatedly have stated that I put it forth as fact. I guess you can't read and define words any better than you make out punctuation marks like "?" I clearly stated it as a question, and asked if anyone had proof of this, as I found it interesting.

The third statement I backed up with about 5 polls and a couple of petitions.

Quit trying to mislead the public.---And now you think it is the schools job to brainwash children instead of teaching them how to think! Schools are not supposed to teach children what to think, as has apparently happened to you, they are supposed to teach children how to think--and critically, I hope. Maybe public schools should have a "conservative appreciation" class? I'm sure you would support that.--I wouldn't.

(For anyone who has been following these posts--have you ever seen me "declare" myself to have won a debate or "declare" that pulatus has lost, as he has claimed on a number of occasions?
Have you ever seen him answer any of my questions? Have you ever seen me not answer one of his? Ever seen any evidence from him? I know you have seen a lot of evidence from me to back up my statements! Attack a spelling error? (I've found a lot of spelling errors in his posts (just look how he spells "environemental" in the second line of this post-a direct copy from his post), but I thought such nonsense was so petty, that I never mentioned it. I'll mention it now, though, to show yet again what a hypocrite he is!) I attack ideas with no basis, not simple spelling mistakes. Who is the credible one?)--I'll let you decide.

Rodney

Yea but rodney -

You have 2 petitions and actually believe they represent valid samples of the scientific community concerning global warming. You said its fair to use these two petitions to justify the statement that the vast majority of scientists don't believe in global warming!

Thats why I think you have no right making fun of anyones intelligence!

Wrong again.

I have said consistently that multiple polls from multiple sources, AND these two petitions led me to that conclusion, not the petitions only. I said that since they all agree with each other, and that I couldn't find any polls that contradict them, there is a very high degree of certainty that the statement I made is correct. I also said that since the percentage differences between those that agree with global warming, and those that don't, is so large, it is extremely unlikely that those polls do not support exactly what I said. I even said that the petitions were a less accurate way to measure "most scientist" than the polls, because only people passionate about this subject would sign them and/or pass them on to others, so they are less random than the polls mentioned.

It is you who have said, that the very small possibility that all those polls and petitions are all so inaccurate, that their results are off by so much, that they are completely wrong, and therefore, so am I. I just can buy that when you are talking about such huge margins and polls of that sample size.

Rodney

Youre trying to salvage your silly assertion that those two polls were valid by lumping them in with other evidence. Why don't you just admit that those two polls on their own, are worthless? They are not valid samplings, but you just can't admit that. You just can't find it within yourself to just come out and state clearly that petitions do not represent the population accurately. can you?

That, to me, represents a personality flaw. Or something deeper. Whats the point of talking with you if you can't admit when your wrong?

You used a couple polls to "prove" your assertion was correct - you used invalid evidence, then tried to obscure that inaccuracy in a flodd of other data.

Tell me. On their own, do those two polls provide us with a valid random sample?

Youre trying to salvage your silly assertion that those two polls were valid by lumping them in with other evidence.

No, my assertion was based on all this evidence, which individually confirms what I said, and which when "lumped all together", also confirms the accuracy of my statement. And I don't know why you would call it "silly" when I can back it up with evidence, from multiple sources, that says the exact same thing! It seems "silly", to call it silly, when there is evidence to confirm it.

Why don't you just admit that those two polls on their own, are worthless?"

Because I have no evidence of that, nor could I find any polls of environmental scientists that don't confirm what I said, and the ones that I did find where overwhelming in their percentages.

They are not valid samplings, but you just can't admit that.

What? I have said that consistently. I have told you that only a vote by every person within a population can give you a close to 100 valid result.--remember that? All polls have errors in them. But 30% worth of errors, all in same direction, to make my statement proven to be false? Get real.

You just can't find it within yourself to just come out and state clearly that petitions do not represent the population accurately. can you?

Sure I can, I said that earlier when I stated that petitions are primarily signed and passed on by those that are passionate about something, so they are flawed. Apparently you are having problems reading again. I also stated that a petition and a counter petition is far more accurate than just one petition. But when those petition results also agree with the polls, to confirm that "most" is accurate, why not include them as evidence that I am right also?

That, to me, represents a personality flaw. Or something deeper. Whats the point of talking with you if you can't admit when your wrong?

I can admit when I am wrong. I've done so before. Doesn't bother me one bit. But I won't state that I am wrong for a fact, when I think I am right and I have a decent amount of evidence that says I am right. (not to mention no evidence that I am wrong.) Saying I am wrong, when I don't believe I am, or have evidence that I am, would be a personality flaw!

You used a couple polls to "prove" your assertion was correct - you used invalid evidence, then tried to obscure that inaccuracy in a flodd of other data.

Tell me. On their own, do those two polls provide us with a valid random sample

No, they don't. I've told you that before. One was a sampling of 400 climatologists in a number of different countries and one was a poll of climatologists within the U.S. --but since they both agree with each other, and show huge percentage margins, and also agree with the petitions stated, it would be almost impossible for what I said to be incorrect. Again, a 30% error rate due to sampling, added to about a 4% margin of error rate, all in your favor, and in samples sizes this large? I don't think so.

Now let me ask you, why is it so hard for you to admit that it would be very difficult for those polls, that were both samples in the hundreds to be both be off by 30%? Why can't you admit that I am right? Why can't you accept poll results? Why do you read meaning into my posts that just isn't there? Why do you use terms like "silly" to try and belittle the issue, instead of presenting some facts? Is that your personality flaw?

Also, I have even been totally honest and been looking only for polls that ask about global warming and not man's impact on it. If you look at those polls which mix the two, it is even worse for your case. For instance:

A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions - principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels. [See Figure II.]

I guess you must think that Gallup polls are very flawed and 17% is also most when you try and correct the margin of error, bias, etc.?

So let's see, 83% to 17%, yeah, I'd call that most also! But then that's just me!

Rodney

Me: "Tell me. On their own, do those two polls provide us with a valid random sample?"

You: "No, they don't."

Thank you, case closed.

Joe

Well, I guess you can declare yourself the winner again, because in your eyes you are, since you are still having problems with the English language. Why does a possible slight problem with the random sampling over ride the overwhelming response to those polls that supports my statement of "most"? Why does a possible slight inaccuracy in random sampling make "most" and incorrect term? Why does a slight possible inaccuracy, in numerous polls, make them all entirely incorrect instead of also making them possibly slightly inaccurate just like the sampling might be? And we don't even know if it is accurate to say that the samples aren't random! Just that they might be, since it is very difficult to get totally random samples in any poll! That's the reason for a margin of error based on sample size. What is the margin of error in polls this size? It is about 4-5%. How does that small percentage, and/or any non-randomness added to it, over ride the enormous percentages involved in the polls to make "most" inaccurate?

These two polls, along with others, and petitions all support the use of the word "most". The ONLY THING you were complaining about, and saying I was totally wrong about, and even lying about?

"most" is totally accurate as far as all the evidence shows!

Again, how do you figure that "most" is "silly", "wrong", etc. when that is exactly what the only evidence I have found, clearly shows? It is wrong because YOU believe that those polls, and all the others out there, must be off by more than 30%? Get a clue.

I guess, using pulatus logic, a poll with 99% responding in the same fashion, and a totally random sampling (which isn't possible) and a margin of error of less than .3% would also be technically inaccurate (because it could be anywhere from 98.7% to 99.3%), so you couldn't use "most" in that case either. How could you use "most" when the worst case scenario could be 98.7%, right? Thus the term "most" can never be used because you can never know the exact numbers? Most, by it's own definition is an inaccurate term. It is 50% plus 1 or more. That means it could be anywhere from 50% plus 1 to 100%--Duh! A possible slight inaccuracy doesn't make the term "most" incorrect. If you are still having problems with definitions, you can find a dictionary on-line and look up the words you don't understand. You know, words like "most", "believe", "rare", etc.

Have you ever noticed that accuracy is variable? Ever seen things like 90% accurate, 99% accurate, etc.? Just because a result is 99% accurate doesn't mean it is absolutely wrong, like you are claiming that I am in this case, when there is a very slight chance it could be.

Still no evidence that I am wrong to use the term "most", and numerous evidence that I am correct, Case closed.

And no, your "silly" argument that a small possible inaccuracy will over ride a large poll result (and multiple other polls, that all agree with each other), so that those polls cannot be referenced when using the term "most", is simply "silly".

Rodney

Man your windy rodney...

You spend so much time defending yourself, wouldn't it have just been easier to admit you were wrong right off the bat? I mean, you defended your rediculous assertion that "most scientists don't even believe in global warming" by referring to these two petitions - thats all - just these two petitions.

It wasn't until I called you on that did you go out and dig up other supporting evidence. Thats fine, but I wasn't questioning the other supporting evidence - just your use of these two non-random, unscientific petitions - and now you've admitted they are worthless - thank you very much.

But now your trying to say that the petitions are "kinda" valid because they agree with other evidence you pulled together, but thats a simple logical fallicy. If they are not random samples they are not valid - even though they may correspond with other evidence. Can you try to understand that?

I'll have to admit, I've never met anyone in my life that is willing to expend so much energy defending a defenseless point of view! But as I said, part of why I did this was to see if you even had the potential of reasonable arguement, which you clearly do not. So I learned that, and learned that it won't be worth my while to engage you in any sort of discussion.

Man your windy rodney...

You spend so much time defending yourself, wouldn't it have just been easier to admit you were wrong right off the bat?

Yes, it would have been a lot easier, but it wouldn't have been correct! I won't lie about something just because it is easier. And I will defend myself when I am correct, especially when other may be viewing this. I wouldn't want to mislead them just to avoid a conflict.

I mean, you defended your rediculous assertion that "most scientists don't even believe in global warming" by referring to these two petitions - thats all - just these two petitions.

Check again, it's more like 5 polls and two petitions that happen to agree. Why is that ridiculous? Because I backed it up with facts? What are you talking about? This sounds just like the environmentalists who say there is a consensus of scientists that agree global warming is happening and that we are causing it, but they have no evidence to support that. What is ridiculous about that statement, considering that it is true? I don't consider anything true to be a ridiculous statement.

It wasn't until I called you on that did you go out and dig up other supporting evidence. Thats fine, but I wasn't questioning the other supporting evidence - just your use of these two non-random, unscientific petitions - and now you've admitted they are worthless - thank you very much.

What? You have consistently said that my statement "most environmental scientists don't believe in global warming" is wrong, and that I should admit it. What's that got to do with the absolute accuracy of the mentioned petitions, or a petition on car safety for that matter? They are completely separate issues! That's why I gave you lots of other evidence to support what I said when you didn't like the petition evidence. Throw out the petition evidence for all I care. But, when the petition evidence agrees with the much more accurate polls, why would the petition evidence be worthless? It agrees with the other more accurate evidence for gosh sakes, and by agreeing, it is accurate- if you know what "agreeing" means!

But now your trying to say that the petitions are "kinda" valid because they agree with other evidence you pulled together, but thats a simple logical fallicy. If they are not random samples they are not valid - even though they may correspond with other evidence. Can you try to understand that?

No, I can't. You are saying "A is accurate", "A equals B", "B is not accurate"? What? B is accurate whether it is just a coincidence, or not, by definition.

And what relevance does that have to the "most scientist.." statement not being correct anyway? You never said I was wrong to use petitions as evidence. You said I was wrong to state that "most scientists don't believe in global warming". Remember? If you don't, just look at your last post again!

Chronologically it went like this.

1) I said "most scientists don't even believe in global warming"

2) You said that was a ridiculous claim and I should prove it.

3) I gave you the petitions

4) You questioned them.

5) I gave you polls, more polls, more polls, etc.

So what do the petitions have to do with me proving my statement? Absolutely nothing. The polls prove it by themselves. Why do you think your questioning of the petitions makes the statement "most scientists don't even believe in global warming" false, when the polls prove it by themselves?

I'll have to admit, I've never met anyone in my life that is willing to expend so much energy defending a defenseless point of view! But as I said, part of why I did this was to see if you even had the potential of reasonable argument, which you clearly do not. So I learned that, and learned that it won't be worth my while to engage you in any sort of discussion.

Ditto. Except, part of why I did this was because I hate when the public is misled with nonsense that can't be backed up by any data.-- whether it is by the news media, politicians, or you. Global warming should never be represented as fact until it is proven. It's a shame that so many people believe in it because of the way it is represented in the media, while most scientists, who are much better judges of such things, don't believe in it.

I can't stand lies, hypocrites, or falsehoods being represented as fact and I will fight them all, wherever I find them. Truth is important to me.

Rodney

This is, with out a doubt, the most convoluted non-sense I have ever read on an internet mesage board.

I would take the time to explain, but rodney has proven himself incapable of recognizing his faulty reasoning.

Your writing a dissertaion and looking for info on internet message boards? Thats pretty incredible.

Wat are you going to do, reference rodney on kingsnake.com? I hope you've talked this over with your advisor!

Right, I feel I need to defend myself here.

Firstly, I am merely at the ideas stage of my dissertation and obviously any info I gather here will not be directly featured.

Secondly, I am very capable of searching scientific literature as well as communicating via 'chat rooms'.

Thirdly I do appreciate that this has probably been somwhat of a cathartic experience for rodney. I think there's a few people out there with a chip on their shoulder!

I'm not really interested in petty debate - If people want to express their opinions then I'm grown up enough to draw my own conclusions from them!

Thanks for your concern. Cheer up.

If anyone has any useful info then please let me know

Pulatus is an extreme left wing liberal, and a major hypocrite as well. His views are so far to the left that anyone close to being in the center is consistently attacked for their views, because he seems to see the center as being extremely far right. (conservative, religious, etc.) That tends to happen when you get that far to the left, or even that far to the right for that matter. Not good places to be if you want to find the truth. He will consistently ask you for proof of everything you say, but he never will provide proof if you ask him to. After you provide the proof, he will then try to attack your sources or your spelling.

A lot of people on these boards won't engage him, because they prefer to avoid these conflicts. I, on the other hand, don't like this kind of nonsense without evidence. It might possibly influence anyone reading his posts, and I consider this a public service--to prevent brainwashing of the public.

(not you, obviously you can think for yourself--I do it more for any youngsters reading this. Many of them will get similar ideas from their teachers at school, without ever hearing an opposing view. That is a real problem in this country, hope things are better in the U.K., as far as this issue goes.)

Rodney

Thats funny rodney - your actually using my own lines on me. Having a little writers block are we?

I beg to differ with your characterization though. I don't make people prove what they say - just people who make utterly outlandish statements - like you.

After all, should I just let statements like "global warming happens mostly at night" and "global warming would be good for us" and the environmental movement is a communist plot" stand?

And please - what was the gibberish about Temp Determined Sex ratios? I read that 3 times just to confirm it made absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever! What on earth were you trying to say?

And all this from a guy with computer science degree from U of California! Kinda makes one doubt your academic credentials, no? (Not that I ever believed you - from what I've seen here, you would never pass the entrance exams)

Why do you consider something outlandish when I have multiple sources that back it up? Is it because you have already made up your mind and you don't want to even see evidence that disagrees with your "outlandish" views?

Like I have said many times before, show me some evidence that what I said was wrong, instead of just throwing out claims like "outlandish", "basically lies", etc. I'd be happy to look at it objectively. I have showed you my evidence that shows that I am right. Why can't you do the same to try and show you are right?

Rodney

We're not talking about global warming rodney - even though you have desperately tried to change the subject since this started. Remember - you made an outlandish claim that th vast majority of scientists don't even believe global warming is happening. I asked you to support that claim and you came back with two petitions. I pointed out how those two petitions are not valid evidence and you went off trying to obfuscate the issue.

You seem to be claiming that they two petitions are valid because other evidence supports them. But thats silly. Either they are valid or they are not. It doesn't matter what other evidence for or against says. You supported your assertion with these two petitions. I'm just trying to figure out if you even have the ability to reason at all. Thats why I'm focusing on this point.

I know you can find other evidence for your position - I'm trying to figure out if you realize how silly it was for you to support your assertion with these two petitions.
You have a history of making absurd claims here. I don't want to discuss these things with you if your incapable of understanding, or admitting when your wrong.

If your more interested in protecting your fragile ego than you are trying to get at the truth, I'll spend my time talking with more open minded people.

We're not talking about global warming rodney - even though you have desperately tried to change the subject since this started. Remember - you made an outlandish claim that th vast majority of scientists don't even believe global warming is happening.

Yes, I remember that, except for the outlandish part! Remember the polls and petitions I gave you that said the same thing?

I asked you to support that claim and you came back with two petitions. I pointed out how those two petitions are not valid evidence and you went off trying to obfuscate the issue.

I came back with those petitions, and then I came back with 2 polls of environmental scientists and climatologists when you weren't happy with the petitions validity. Remember that? How did that obfuscate the issue?

You seem to be claiming that they two petitions are valid because other evidence supports them. But thats silly.

No, I am claiming that it is delusional to think that an error that large would be likely in a sample size that large, in two separate polls, and in two petitions, when they all agree with each other.

Either they are valid or they are not.

While technically that is true, its basically nonsense when you take it into the context we were talking about. We are only talking about your accusal that "most" is wrong. If I only talked to 75 people in the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society and all 75 gave me the same response, even though the margin of error was large due to the small sample size, "most" would be supported as correct. In the polls we were talking about, the sample size was considerably large, so the margin of error was fairly small. To think that there could be sampling errors that large, as to make "most" false, is unbelievably unlikely. Frankly, I don't care if the sample is off by 10% in your opinion. That still easily makes it "most".

It doesn't matter what other evidence for or against says.

Also nonsense. The more polls you have that all agree, the more likely that their results are accurate. If one poll has an accuracy of 95%, and you find 10 other polls that also agree, your accuracy goes way above 99%. If there is a polls that disagrees, your accuracy goes down. Had I found a poll of environmental scientists that had different results than the 2 I found, I would agree with you that the other polls would then be in question.

You supported your assertion with these two petitions. I'm just trying to figure out if you even have the ability to reason at all. Thats why I'm focusing on this point.

Sure, the more evidence you have that confirms something, the better! Is that so hard to understand? Can't you reason that out?

I know you can find other evidence for your position - I'm trying to figure out if you realize how silly it was for you to support your assertion with these two petitions.

Don't forget the polls too!
Basically, the petitions were mentioned because one group of scientist signed a petition to bring to Kyoto, and a bunch of other scientist got mad and started their own, in opposition to it. While not extremely accurate, they are somewhat accurate since one was a response to the other, and they were both being signed by scientists and not the general public. I don't think the percentages are anywhere near 100% accurate. I never said that they were. What I was trying to say was, since they are 19,000 to 2,000, what are the chances that "most" isn't also accurate to describe the situation with regard to them? Remember, "most" in this case would be anything in the range of 2001, or more, against global warming-- and it was a whopping 19,000!

You have a history of making absurd claims here. I don't want to discuss these things with you if your incapable of understanding, or admitting when your wrong.

Everything you have ever "called" me on, I have proved with evidence. Why is that absurd claims? (Except for all the cases where you misread what I posted, and changed the meaning of the words I wrote, to then make an argument. Like when I asked a question, and you accused me of making it as a statement of fact, or when I said I think or I believe, and you also said I stated it as fact.)

If your more interested in protecting your fragile ego than you are trying to get at the truth, I'll spend my time talking with more open minded people.

Frankly, I don't think you will find anyone more open-minded than me. Ego? What Ego? Where? But I imagine you will be able to find someone who will agree with any liberal supported issues you like, regardless of the facts or evidence.

Rodney

You don't know what the error rate is on your petitions because your petitions are not random samples. You don't know how they were advertised, what number of people heard of them, which one may have been placed better in search engines, which one may have been on-line for 5 times as long as the other one, which one made the news, etc., etc., etc.

They just are not valid rodney - not at all, not even a little bit. If you submitted any sort of journal article with data supporting an assertion, or even lending credibility to an assertion based on petitions you would be laughed out of the place. My god man, how hard is that to understand?

You presented these stupid petitions in support of your rediculaous statement and not until I called you on it diod you got out and fish up other evidence. Why didn't you, at that time, admit that the petitions were not evidence? Why can't you admit when your wrong?

I mean for the sake of arguement, just to get on with the discussion a normal person would just say, yea, your right, the petitions were stupid to present as evidence. But not rodney - rodney would rather spend days and hours trying to defend his stupid assertions - pretty lame rodney. I give up.

What? Now you are trying to change your argument again because you are loosing?

You said You presented these stupid petitions in support of your rediculaous statement and not until I called you on it diod you got out and fish up other evidence. Why didn't you, at that time, admit that the petitions were not evidence? Why can't you admit when your wrong?

What? You called me on the statement "most environmental scientist don't believe in global warming". That is the statement I have been proving. You are still claiming it is a rediculous statement, even in your last post. You have consistently said that that statement is wrong. Now, all of the sudden, it is my use of petitions that is wrong?

While the petitions just happen to totally agree with all the polls, and I have consistently said that petitions are not very accurate because of their randomness problems, you now have changed the subject of the debate to this? After I have, numerous times, said that they weren't very accurate by themselves! I though we agreed on that long ago. Wow!

Who cares about the petitions! I was just using them because they also support all the poll results. Whether you like the petitions or not is not what is at issue. There is plenty of other evidence to prove that the statement which you originally "called me on" is true.

Rodney

I think you might want to go back and re-read the thread rodney. You've lost your focus somewhere along the way.

I was trying to get you to admit how worthless the petitions you presented were. Iasked you specifically many times. Go check.

Thats the trouble with the "truth" - sometimes it moves around on you. Try to stay focused now...

I was trying to get you to admit how worthless the petitions you presented were. Iasked you specifically many times. Go check.

I have, your main argument was about the "most scientist do not believe in global warming" statement. Unfortunately you don't understand statistics well enough to be able to understand my argument.

You tried to change the focus onto the "petitions" recently because of all the evidence that I dug up that was proving that "most scientist do not believe in global warming". Can't you understand that the petitions were but one small piece of the argument? Can't you understand that there is a lot of evidence to support that? Can't you understand that the petitions needed to be extremely wrong for "most" to be false, even if there was no other evidence? If those petitions were just very wrong, "most" would still be a true statement. And it was extremely unlikely that they could be off by that much. That's what statistics is all about. Probabilities and percentages, not absolutes. If you have ever taken a statistical analysis class, you would have know that. You learn that within the first week! As it turns out, the petitions were off by something like 7-15% percent depending on which poll you compared them too. They needed to be off by about 85%, so my argument was not only valid (that it was very unlikely they could be off by that much, even if they weren't extremely random), it was proven true. Can't you understand that since one petition was the result of the first, they have a small amount of accuracy to them and that is all that was neededto prove "most", due to the overwhelming percentages? And because of this, you think I should then say "most scientist do not believe in global warming" is wrong?. Maybe you need a logic class to go along with that statistics class you so desperately need. You need to go back and read ALL your posts. You consistently stated that my statement "most scientist do not believe in global warming". was "ridiculous" from the very start. You even said that as recently as yesterday. The petition thing is relatively recent compared to the "most scientist ...." part. An obvious attempt at a diversion that isn't working. When you are wrong, just change the subject! I won't fall for that. Even if you are wrong about the subject you tried to changed it to also.

Rodney

I wouldn't listen to pulatus. You're doing fine.

He doesn't understand you are just fishing for ideas, he thinks you are going to use this board as a factual basis for a thesis or something. When people ask questions or ask for advice on these boards, he attacks them for making factual statements. He has some major issues, with everything-LOL

If you tell him you went outside and saw a beautiful blue sky, he will argue that is was "azure" because Al Gore told him so. Then he will demand that you prove what you saw was actually blue!-LOL

Rodney

Greetings from across the pond!

Pulatus says, "Just some more nonsense from Rodney"--so I had to go look and prove I was correct yet again. First URL I tried had it.

It lists various theories as to why this could be an advantage to certain species. (Including both of the ones I mentioned to you in my previous post, I might add.--Pulatus is wrong yet again!--He's good at that. ) Unfortunately, they are just theories (like global warming) but I hope that helps point you in the right direction, and gives you more ideas as to why it might be advantageous.

http://137.122.151.31/BIO3105/downloads/Shine1999.pdf

If you do a search on "evolutionary advantages of temp. dependent sex determination in reptiles" you will find some other stuff as well. (using tdsd seems to work better than just tds).

Good luck.---A lot of search results I found were from Australia and the sites were no longer active.

Rodney