161–170 of 221 posts
"according to a four-page budget memo obtained by The Washington Post." Why not share that memo with the public since they have it? How is the public interest served by not sharing it?
Of course they are. NOAA does nothing which panders to populist sentiment. NOAA can't put steel workers to work. NOAA is not the grit of honest American labor, or the power of military conquest, or the gold of a halcyon age. NOAA cannot Make America Great Again, but a new fleet of aircraft carriers can. So it goes. Tie a rock to a string and hang it outside your window to see which way the wind is blowing.
I bet everyone in Alabama at the time remembers April 27, 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Super_Outbreak
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you ask for an example for honest debate, or to have a straw man you could pick apart? Because it seems like it's the latter. You're arguing his example and ignoring the larger point (likely intentionally).
Honest. I was pretty clear that I think it's a state issue but was interested in hearing whether it's feasible for the states to handle. If it isn't, then I could see that being a valid justification as a federal investment which is undergoing cuts that may affect the service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lumping social security in with taxes? You must be very good with numbers.
I'll ignore the ad hominem. Minus SS, it's still less than 21% of total federal spending.
> I'll ignore the ad hominem
Makes sense when the powers that be think climate change is made up, in fact maybe they think the climate is made up. Why fund an agency that spends money on something that does not exist?
Certainly they believe that weather exists? Cuts to NOAA won't just affect climate change research but will affect weather forecasts, hurricane forecasts, severe weather forecasts, etc. Mr. Trump is a pathetic excuse for a president.
> Certainly they believe that
> weather exists
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When on Earth did anti science trolls take such a prominent role in HN? It's not hard for me to imagine a misinformation campaign run against HN, because I can't really understand how someone technical could countenance anti climate change ideas.
If you've done any sort of computer modeling, it's pretty easy to understand why technical people would have doubts. It's pretty easy to do it wrong and it's pretty easy to make it look right. Anyway, questioning is science and the debate is more about whether the sky is falling, whether man is primarily responsible, and if so what the next steps should be. So you can acknowledge that deforestation contributes to glo…
Just cause you did computer modeling doesn't grant you magic power to understand machine learning or the vast swarth of area in statistic, mathematical modeling, etc...
And it certainly doesn't give you power over the dozen of experts in different fields that spend their whole lives in it and saying global warming is a thing.
If you're so skeptic about "computer modeling", then why google, apple, and many other are banking on Machine Learnin such as Neural Network?
The foundation of data science, some argue, is computational statistic. Which falls under this so call computer modeling you're bringing up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With the proviso that US military support and materiel has been used as trade goods for alliance-making with other countries for most of the last century. A large portion of the US military budget is "being the substitute military for US allies." The key question of decreasing US government spending is how to get other countries to pony up for the "renting" of the US military forces that they're already doing (becaus…
You should take a look at world military budgets... actually look at the countries that are spending the money. $1.7T/year in total military spending worldwide. China at 200B, Russia at 70B. Iran? 22nd largest military budget at $10B. The rest of the big spenders are our friends and allies. I'm not going to count up every country, but roughly 1.3T to 1.4T is spent by the US + allies + friendly countries. Who are we p…
Our own citizens, of course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you've done any sort of computer modeling, it's pretty easy to understand why technical people would have doubts. It's pretty easy to do it wrong and it's pretty easy to make it look right. Anyway, questioning is science and the debate is more about whether the sky is falling, whether man is primarily responsible, and if so what the next steps should be. So you can acknowledge that deforestation contributes to glo…
This also doesn't help ease concerns with those that are skeptical of many reports and models: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-chang... > “Gradually, in the months after [the report] came out, the evidence kept mounting that Tom Karl constantly had his ‘thumb on the scale’ — in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets — in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warm…
The news article if you can call that, sources the Daily UK Mail as a source.
> Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus,
There is no smoking gun. It's a hear say from one person or two.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This also doesn't help ease concerns with those that are skeptical of many reports and models: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-chang... > “Gradually, in the months after [the report] came out, the evidence kept mounting that Tom Karl constantly had his ‘thumb on the scale’ — in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets — in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warm…
It's an allegation base on evidence and report with no source. The news article if you can call that, sources the Daily UK Mail as a source. > Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus, There is no smoking gun. It's a hear say from one person or two.
> Another prominent climate scientist, the University of Colorado’s Roger A. Pielke Sr., said Mr. Bates‘ experience was “consistent with my experiences” with Mr. Karl on the Climate Change Science Program in 2005.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you've done any sort of computer modeling, it's pretty easy to understand why technical people would have doubts. It's pretty easy to do it wrong and it's pretty easy to make it look right. Anyway, questioning is science and the debate is more about whether the sky is falling, whether man is primarily responsible, and if so what the next steps should be. So you can acknowledge that deforestation contributes to glo…
These modeling are base statistic which takes into account random errors. Just cause you did computer modeling doesn't grant you magic power to understand machine learning or the vast swarth of area in statistic, mathematical modeling, etc... And it certainly doesn't give you power over the dozen of experts in different fields that spend their whole lives in it and saying global warming is a thing. If you're so skept…
What I was putting forth was an understanding on why some techies may be skeptical of the computer modeling which is the evidence of AGW and the near immediate doom and gloom. Machine learning is not infallible. We're very much in the infancy. And all of a sudden scientists are experts at modeling the sun, earth, moon, currents, etc? This is not social network / ad network / ecommerce optimization we are talking about.
Of course the models account for random errors but they also include a lot of assumptions. You can doctor any model to fit your agenda.
Computer models and neural networks have incredible potential and application, but to suggest that everyone should accept these models of the universe from scientists as if they are infallible makes no sense.