---

---

---

First
By the 18th century, the term "statistics" designated the systematic collection of demographic and economic data by states.

---

Second
The term "mathematical statistics" designates the mathematical theories of probability and statistical inference, which are used in statistical practice.

---

Third
Blaise Pascal, an early pioneer on the mathematics of probability.



97% of Climate Scientists Really Do Agree

There's consensus around the consensus. That should settle that, right? Check out my new show HOT MESS for more!
So? Saying that 97% of scientist agree is not science, especially not climate science, or geophysics. That's not how science works, or engineering. Idiots in other majors don't understand. In engineering classes they don't ask for your sources. You can't reference other scientists. They ask you to SHOW YOUR WORK. You have to show the full analysis. That's what moron accountants, and lawyers don't understand in the real world because their job is just references stuff. They they don't know that they're stupid. We need to see the models in order to know if the solutions are real. I need to know if you're a shyster trying to kill my by having me give up my gas car rather than reduce the size of my house, or if you're telling the truth. That's why they always say engineers can't work as a team. It's really because everyone else that went to school is actually stupid.

You're using it as an excuse to steal people's money and property. It's rat gypsy move to just say a scientist told me. That's like if I'm asking someone to donate an organ to save his child and it will kill him but the child is going to die anyway but I'm going to give the organ to someone else. That's the accounting of it and seeing who benefits. I know you retards are liars about that.
Haha if you don’t see this you are not a critical thinker .. but then again 40% of Americans believe in angels .. no further comment needed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1e5HAZo4iw&t=232s Even if they did agree and I've yet to see a meeting where you could get 70% of people to agree and they have been wrong so many times before, I guess I'd give it more validity if it wasn't every time someone said hey your wrong they were not all but lynched rather than debated to see if they had anything worth hearing.
Did 97% of people agree with Copernicus?
This article is on consensus that humans are the cause of global climate change but I hear arguments that there isn't consensus on if the climate is actually changing. That should be pretty easy to prove one way or another, so what's the story? Are there experts who don't think the climate is changing?
Suggest you watch Greg Whitestone - Inconvenient Facts
That study has been challenged. Ahh he admits that the method of the study had been disputed. We also know that these scientists have falsified their data. Dude get a clue . For decades these climate fear mongers have been predicting ruin but it never happens.
97% of people watching this channel think you're a moron. I think that's a consensus...Why aren't we worrying about the complete degradation of our society for political gain? If the gov't was honest about their intentions, you might actually get consensus on things that matter.
This is not the consensus at all! A group of scientists in Australia said they were studying thousands of climate studies and said the had a consensus of 97%. They were a small number of scientists and the number of studies they analyzed were very small compared to the initial number they said! This was confirmed by a scientist from Oxford University in England. Obama took notice of the 97%!!! And next thing you know the lie became political.
Be Brainwashed
BS!
If you don't include the studies that don't don't make a statement either way, how exactly is that a consensus?
"but even if we ignore cook's study, turns out that other people looked at this question, and found a similar answer." In other words, if Cooks study proves to be accurate, then it's demonstrable fact. But if people find holes or logical flaws in the study then just forget about what you saw and focus on these other studies that we claim provide the answer cook was trying to say, and don't worry about researchers failure to hold cook accountable because that will aid the skeptics.
if there was no such thing as climate change, these scientist wouldn't receive any funding nor would they have a career. their livelihood depends on climate change hoax.
It’s called cherry picking , it’s what all scientists do to get the end result they want .
Does it matter what experts think? We should use science method and data to see what the truth really is, shouldn't we?
97% of scientists believe the world was flat back in the 1400s
That doesn’t mean you don’t have to listen to what those 3% have to say. If anything to get a perspective on how science works and to evaluate if you can have your own educated opinion hehe. Not the first time the scientific consensus was wrong as, paradoxically, that is how science advances fundamentally.
Of course, chances are the consensus is the reasonable option. Now the problem is not knowing or ignoring what science is. And here many scientists are guilty too. Opinions are not science.
You are a stupid person - many of the most qualified people disagree with the consensus.

---