>> ^SlipperyPete:
I have a pie chart:
"Does Fox know how to graphically represent data?"


Wow! According to your chart, they're wrong at least 193% of the time!

I have a pie chart:

"Does Fox know how to graphically represent data?"

Jesus is not bound by the laws of the universe, he bends it to his will. This includes pie charts that exceed 100%.

I think the data was supposed to represent what % of the GOP base would back each candidate. As demon_ix pointed out, the flaw was in the use of a pie chart rather than a bar chart. I love how Fox's production department is actually an editorial department. Too bad for them that they are dumb. They're taking Kirk Cameron's advice to "bypass the intellect".

^yes that might be, but then a pie chart would still not be the correct representation of the data.

Proper use of a pie chart, that was.

Just to clarify things, the second amendment reads as follows:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This is probably the most loosely-worded amendment, aside from the 9th, and open to a TON of interpretation.

Such as... As we already have a standing army - the very definition of a "well regulated militia" - the entire amendment is virtually rendered obsolete. Since we already have a strong military, the citizenry need not arm themselves. But then the crazies will say "But what if we need to use our firearms against our own military?" This is an INSANE place to argue from, as it seems pretty un-American to even consider firing upon your own military. We should not even give any legitimacy to such arguments.

I'll cite this PDF released by the Washington, DC MPD, specifically the graph on page 6. It shows just how frequently firearms are used in homicides, compared to other weapons. I was searching for a Pie Chart that broke down the circumstances in firearm-related deaths in DC prior to the handgun ban. It showed that over half of all deaths from firearms were suicides, homicides made up over a quarter, and "legal" shootings (where the shooter was found to be within his rights to protect his own life or the life of another) made up less than 1% of all firearm related deaths. I'm having a hard time finding this chart again, but I know it exists, and it's still out there.

^ some of that is sulfur dioxide.

about 3% of 3% according to my pie charts.

Not only does she draw the wrong conclusion, but she starts with the wrong information. Carbon Dioxide makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere... that's 1/75th of what she states. At 1% it causes drowsiness. At 2-3% blood pressure increases, hearing is effected and narcosis sets in. At 5% we have trouble breathing, becoming confused and dizzy. At 8% eyesight degrades, muscles tremor and, after a few minutes, we pass out. OSHA recommends that average exposure during an 8-hour work day for a healthy adult should not exceed 0.5%.

But that's not what really bothers me about her speech. What really annoyed me was phrases such as

"...a natural byproduct of nature."

"...so if you take a pie chart, carbon dioxide is perhaps 3%..."
         - And if you don't take a pie chart, how much is it then?

"human activity contributes, perhaps, 3% of the 3%. In other words human activity is maybe 3% contributing to the 3%"
         - Funny, those don't sound like other words; they sound like the same words in a different order.

Its unfair to lay a blanket of blame at 'government' like that, when you had an administration that had no understanding of fiscal responsibility and choose to spend more then it was earning back because of some stupid belief that American business would make it all prevail.

Federal Spending Pie Chart

Maybe if the US stops spending so much on its military it can start spending whats needed to pay back the national debt and reduce Social Security spending concerns and rework the Medicare program.

Choose your administration and leaders wisely.

on the contrary,it is very feasible.
The main problem with gasoline engines is the issue of inefficiency. Imagine a pie chart. Surprisingly, only around 15-30% of the energy stored in gasoline is transferred to the ground, the rest being lost as vibration, and mainly heat. Beyond this, there is still leftover fuel in the exhaust that isn't burned. By creating hydrogen and oxygen, not only are you creating two very volatile gasses, you are generating an extra source of oxygen for the combustion of the existing fuel.

Oh, you little poophead! You downvoted my comment too. Typical Mac snob behavior.

In reply to this comment by critttter:
" effete Mac snob."


Hey KP -Go make a stinkin' pie chart .

" effete Mac snob."


Hey KP -Go make a stinkin' pie chart .

>> ^Farhad2000:
In reality the majority of Japan and Europe is powered through Nuclear power, safety standards and newer technology make a nuclear meltdown a near impossibility.


This is just something on that subject that I came across recently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation

Note the pie charts along the right side. The US chart is from 2005, but I doubt much has changed. We get about 70% of our electricity through burning fossil fuels. Nuclear accounts for less than 20%.

Meanwhile, in France, which I suspect is typical of Europe, nearly 80% of their electricity was generated via nuclear plants in 2006. Fossil fuels account for less than 10%.

I've got no point to make here. I just think it's interesting how far apart we are on opposite sides of the pond.

thank you so much for taking the time to research that and contribute such a quality post

Q

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
nib, lucky for me they've got a fair amount of that PIG book available for free on Google books so I just took a quick look at it before I head to bed.

One of the things that stood out was a group of pie charts which shows carbon dioxide among a few other greenhouse gases. It's not a greenhouse gas if it has zero effect on global temperature.

The book was apparently written by a lawyer, Christopher Horner, who is a recognized expert on "global warming legislation and regulation". That's something, but he's no climatologist. Chapter 1 is dedicated to calling environmentalists "anti-American communists". The first paragraph was really all I needed to read to understand that this book has no value to me.

It's endorsed by Richard Lindzen, who is a climatologist and has worked in related fields as well. His position seems to be similar to what I said in my initial post; that the temperature is rising but we're not entirely sure why yet. He's been criticized for taking payment of $2500/day from oil/coal companies for consulting services. He's been funded and/or supported by Western Fuels and OPEC.

The book is also endorsed by a few senators, and nobody believes anything they say so I think we can just ignore that.

The following organizations have taken the stance that global warming is at least partially due to human activity:

The aforementioned IPCC
The National Science Academies of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the US
The US National Research Council
The American Meteorological Society
The American Geophysical Union
The American Institute of Physics
The American Astronomical Society
The Federal Climate Change Science Program
The American Association for the Advancement of Science
The Geological Society of London
The Geological Society of America
The American Chemical Society
The Institution of Engineers Australia
The American Association of State Climatologists
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists

The American Association of State Climatologists, by the way, is made up of state climatologists, assistant climatologists under the state climatologist and retired climatologists. They state a membership count of "approximately 150". That's 70 more than you claim exist in the country.