Facebook
Google
GitHub
Linkedin
We are paying Donald Trumps Salary and he babbles on about nonsense better than any scientist I've ever met, so, yes, I will continue funding.
But, science!
- Thread starter joeyd999
- Start date
- Status
Are we? I guess we will have to see if he takes a salary. He already told CBS News he was going to forego the presidential salary. He won't be the first who didn't take a salary.
Seems that by law he may have to accept a $1 a year but hey, I'll pay it to him myself if that's what it takes to keep him going!
Take your pick of what you want to read regarding his presidential pay.
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+...3.69i57j0l5.8629j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Seems pretty well defined that 'we won't be paying him anything' to do his job. (just like he said he was going to do.)
Take your pick of what you want to read regarding his presidential pay.
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+...3.69i57j0l5.8629j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Seems pretty well defined that 'we won't be paying him anything' to do his job. (just like he said he was going to do.)
What he says and what he does are two different things. Remember when he skipped the debate to raise money for veterans? Those vets never got a dime. Then six month later, the press embarrassed him into making a donation - which ended up being a fraction of what he promised.
We'll have to wait until July to see if the press checks into the execution of this promise, too.
And so far we're getting what we payed for.
If I saw it from a named source from a reputable paper and not some obvious right wing rags it might carry a lot more weight.
You'll love this rebuttal.If I saw it from a named source from a reputable paper and not some obvious right wing rags it might carry a lot more weight.
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/
FRom the link.
Say what? 'Our data showed less change therefore we had to adjust it up to match everyone else's.'
'We didn't raise our numbers to show more and faster warming. We just adjusted them to show less slower not warming."
Sounds a lot like 'Everyone else does it so we do it to' mentality in play?
A clear problem is also the change in the sensors and where they're placed. The globe does appear to be warming the arctic and cooling the antarctic. So they go stick a whole bunch of buoys in the arctic. Then when they see warming, this data gets weighted by a higher buoy count. Does this tell us anything about the globe as a whole?
That sensor location bias seems to be just one more of a growing points of contention with more and more informed and educated people who follow the issue. Same with the 'when factor' of what time of year and for how long warmer temperature events occurred of which none of it is ever referenced or shown to the general public or even in most published reports that ever make it out to anywhere.
What's being presented to the world has been so over simplified that it largely has no significant meaning or accuracy in what it is suposed to represent.
To me it's like trying to reduce the complexity of a computer and everything it does down to be defined as a single resistor connected to a power supply like saying my Toshiba P75 laptop is the same as a 6.3 ohm resistor because the power supply sees it as a 19 volt ~3 amp load. Then saying there is a problem with my laptop's function and it's going into thermal runaway because its average mean power consumption went up .01 watts over some period of time.
Its over simplified to the point that the monodimensional data trend has zero relation or predictive value compared to the reality of how the laptop as a whole is working or what is going on with any number of its hundreds of subcircuits and their operations.
The relevance, accuracy and significance of primary one data value has been so grossly misrepresented and blown out of proportion that so many high level scientists and engineers have a hard time accepting its true value let alone validity simply due to to many other highly significant sub factors being ignored or thrown out to derive it. Even more so when constant 'adjustments to the formulas' have to keep being done to show a faster and faster rate of change that normal well defined statistical analysis and real world observations for such data sets does not completely agree with on its value and significance to the systems function and operation as a whole.
Interesting and rather heady technical discussion here regarding how real high level knowledge research and development scientists and engineers see the atmospheric Co2 radiative forcing issues. The comments discussion is well worth the read too just for the expanded and extend information on the subject as well and it gives a very harsh reality check on just how little the average public knows or understands (let alone accurately) about the reality and actually known workings of just one part of what so many are throwing huge fusing fits over being a concern.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/13/a-conversation-with-an-infrared-radiation-expert/
I think they are a little smarter than that.
They do target areas to better understand what is going on. For example they are looking at carbon sinks more closely now.
There are a lot of changes now in the Arctic so that doesn't surprise me. It's probably because @sinus123 ask why it was raining so much.
As the ice melts up there the ocean flows will probably change so that probably is of interest as well.https://www.rt.com/news/328468-arctic-ice-melting-timelapse/
And yet you decided not to cite either.
One hopes they are smarter than that, but with billions in funding at stake, one never knows.
That's one of the things I love about the modern internet the most. As far as I know every legitimate real scientist studying anything that wants to know if what they are seeing is valid and plausibly correct can put their research out to the world of their peers to have it reviewed in scrutinized in obsessive detail.
To me any scientist or scientific group who makes a bold claim yet makes it very clear they have no want or interest in or outrightly block having any of their work peer reviewed draws immediate question in my mind as to what they're trying to hide and, unfortunately, way too much of the suposed top level research in climate change has had a very odd lack of any raw data or allowed access to any of its deeper data, data collection methods, and data processing techniques they used to get to the numbers they claim to have or their numbers they came up with show something substantially different (dumbed down and over simplified in the wrong way to give a false implication of something that isn't) than what the media presented them to the general public be.
If someone makes a bold claim and a hot debate and or fuss quickly follows due to limited proof and willingness to have their work reviewed by opposing or independent third parties that says that what they have is likely not trustworthy.
Especially so if they keep getting called out for obvious and highly questionable leaked actions and data, like we have all seen done too many times, already with too many government and big business funded research projects over the years.
Or if their research was good and well reviewed yet what it does show and what it does prove has very little in common with how it is being presented to the public because it bee too dumbed down or twisted to prop up a political agenda.
- Status
