Trump

[Brookie1973]

View attachment 30849

Keep digging. I’m sure you will find the answers eventually.

 

[Brookie1973]

Can I add in one more?

If you get bad numbers like he did with the jobs then you just fire the person who reported it

Not surprised he has fired whoever was in charge of this comically inaccurate data, though it is interesting that numbers were overstated prior to the last election (and revised downward after). Not saying politics are involved, but the person fired was hired by Biden.

 

[Brookie1973]

It’s encouraging that scientists are once again able to actually question things, rather than just accept the dictated view (or else). You know, what science is meant to be about. No doubt the leftist media is already pulling its hair out.

U.S. Dept of Energy publishes new climate assessment report breaking the alleged ‘consensus’ – First official U.S. Govt report to push back on UN climate reports

This is HUGE. It is the first comprehensive government scientific report to challenge the conventional narrative surrounding the climate change issue in a very long time, perhaps ever. I cannot und…

www.climatedepot.com

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Beware trolls at work

 

[Brookie1973]

Troll = the default push back for positions you disagree with.

 

[Cliffycomeback]

OK, open borders.

Don’t even exist?

And maybe some ‘far left’ organisation promotes open borders - but I wouldn’t have a clue. I assume however that most far left, or even left, or even moderate parties probably advocate for relaxing immigration restrictions.

Hence my answer to the Q is a qualified ‘yes’. But more likely just a theoretical yes, in that far left organisations might have an ultimate future vision of no borders for humanity – but it’s not a realistic goal in the current world.

Having said that - I’m guessing, and not at all familiar with any ‘far left’ politics.

To me ...‘left’ means basically pro reforms aimed at improving the lot of the population at large, especially those who are suffering most under the status quo.

To me, right means opposing those reforms, in order to maintain the status quo. And in practice often means supporting measures that actually worsen things for parts of the population, on the grounds that the status quo would be under threat if they didn’t.

So do I support open borders? In theory yes, for our utopian future world wouldn't even need borders. Again, it’s not a realistic issue for anyone, anywhere (so far as I know). And does this mean I’d welcome hostile armies into the country? Of course not.

In Australia open borders would have as much chance of major party backing as gun reform would in the US. Lots of people want some change but neither party would touch it (for fear of electoral backlash).

Am I pro immigration? Yes. And I strongly oppose Australia locking up asylum seekers for 10 years or more while ‘processing their claims’. I think that is horrible

Angela Merkel's open door immigration policy has resulted in devastating consequences. So too has the mass migration policies of her friends in Brussels whereby millions of Islamic men have flooded into Europe. It doesn't take much critical thinking to realise that two cultures which are opposed to each other would result in the violence and public division we currently see unfolding around Europe.

Sadly, the worst of it is yet to come.

 

[Brookie1973]

Some much needed steps being taken to create greater diversity in broadcast media. And note the interviewer didn't shy away from asking the tough questions. Very refreshing.

 

[Uber Eagle 72]

There is still fire 🔥 in the old belly.
One thing you can tell is that the disdain is genuine.

 

[Brookie1973]

There is still fire 🔥 in the old belly.
One thing you can tell is that the disdain is genuine.

Genuine and justified.

 

[Terry Zarsoff]

Prepared for his next call to glory with Vlad the Impaler.

 

[Cliffycomeback]

There is still fire 🔥 in the old belly.
One thing you can tell is that the disdain is genuine.

TEll us what you really think Donald.

 

[manlyfan76]

 

[Brookie1973]

Troll alert.

 

[h27272727]

It’s encouraging that scientists are once again able to actually question things, rather than just accept the dictated view (or else). You know, what science is meant to be about. No doubt the leftist media is already pulling its hair out.

U.S. Dept of Energy publishes new climate assessment report breaking the alleged ‘consensus’ – First official U.S. Govt report to push back on UN climate reports

This is HUGE. It is the first comprehensive government scientific report to challenge the conventional narrative surrounding the climate change issue in a very long time, perhaps ever. I cannot und…

www.climatedepot.com

The modern scientist looks into a topic, form a hypothesis (prediction) and testing methodology (to test quantitatively eg. using sensor measurements). Tests are performed, results are collected, post-processing / analysis conducted. Then they discuss the results with respect to the hypothesis, noting what was right and wrong about their initial beliefs. A conclusion is written, mentioning next steps and possible value.

Eventually (if important) other scientists read it, assess any conflict of interests for the original author/s (eg. political, economic factors). They then try validate/disprove the report findings and/or build off of it (eg. 'oh cool this paper says x, if i can validate its claims then i can apply this to my study on y').

In other words, credible researchers/scientists don't pull stuff out of their arse. Science involves constantly evolving understanding - but mostly by validating a small idea then building off of it. Very rarely are there big scientific breakthroughs that completely shift global understanding. This report is far from being one of those... It may get a few chuckles, but also a fair bit of disgust.

It's something you'd expect out of North Korea - a government leader selecting a small crew of sympathetic right-wing scientists to further their agenda. Like sports and politics, or science and religion, science and politics should never, ever mix.

Warning: the reality is that you are not a scientist. Neither am I (although at least have experience writing a handful of scientific reports in engineering). Neither of us really have the credibility to lecture people on what is 'good science' and 'bad science'. But the average person can see through political acts such as firing an economic statistician to install your own (and suddenly having 'fantastic numbers'...ffs). Same goes for Trump hiring a small group of sympathetic climate change deniers to write a govt climate change report. Anyways, since you posted it here, the following article gives important context on that report. If you're not interested in reading further (/testing your understanding) then I don't see the point in copy and pasting wacky stuff here from your Twitter feed.

Contents of the article addressing the climate report by Trump's DoE

Dozens of scientists are scrambling to respond to a report released last week by the US Department of Energy (DoE), which concluded that global warming is “less damaging economically than commonly believed”. The researchers say that the report, written by a small group of scholars who question the scientific consensus on climate change, misrepresents decades of climate science in a bid to repeal a 2009 government ruling that greenhouse gases endanger public welfare. They are now trying to coordinate a unified response, knowing that their arguments could influence a legal battle that is likely to go to the US Supreme Court.

“This little report is basically designed to suppress science, not to enhance it or encourage it,” says Joellen Russell, an oceanographer at the University of Arizona. “It’s awful.”

“I’m gobsmacked,” says Benjamin Santer, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, who spent three decades working at the DoE’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. “It’s a revision of science and a revision of history. We have to respond.”

Some climate researchers are now writing short rebuttals to the scientific arguments made in the DoE report. “The alternative is to do nothing,” says Andrew Dessler, an atmospheric scientist at Texas A&M University in College Station, who is helping to coordinate one effort. “I just don’t think I can do that.”

The DoE declined to address criticisms of the science laid out in the report, but a spokesperson said that the document’s five authors were recruited by the US energy secretary Chris Wright — a former oil and gas executive — and that they “represent diverse viewpoints and political backgrounds and are all well-respected and highly credentialled individuals”. The report, the spokesperson adds, was reviewed internally at the agency, and the DoE is now opening it up to “wider peer review from the scientific community and the general public”, with the comment period ending on 2 September.... article continues

Resource that can be used to compare the report author's claims against accepted scientific understanding - they also identify any potential conflicts of interest

Climate misinformation by source: John Christy

Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.

skepticalscience.com

For if you wanted to compare what the authors claims actually are vs what the established scientific understanding is

 

[Brookie1973]

The modern scientist looks into a topic, form a hypothesis (prediction) and testing methodology (to test quantitatively eg. using sensor measurements). Tests are performed, results are collected, post-processing / analysis conducted. Then they discuss the results with respect to the hypothesis, noting what was right and wrong about their initial beliefs. A conclusion is written, mentioning next steps and possible value.

Eventually (if important) other scientists read it, assess any conflict of interests for the original author/s (eg. political, economic factors). They then try validate/disprove the report findings and/or build off of it (eg. 'oh cool this paper says x, if i can validate its claims then i can apply this to my study on y').

In other words, credible researchers/scientists don't pull stuff out of their arse. Science involves constantly evolving understanding - but mostly by validating a small idea then building off of it. Very rarely are there big scientific breakthroughs that completely shift global understanding. This report is far from being one of those... It may get a few chuckles, but also a fair bit of disgust.

It's something you'd expect out of North Korea - a government leader selecting a small crew of sympathetic right-wing scientists to further their agenda. Like sports and politics, or science and religion, science and politics should never, ever mix.

Warning: the reality is that you are not a scientist. Neither am I (although at least have experience writing a handful of scientific reports in engineering). Neither of us really have the credibility to lecture people on what is 'good science' and 'bad science'. But the average person can see through political acts such as firing an economic statistician to install your own (and suddenly having 'fantastic numbers'...ffs). Same goes for Trump hiring a small group of sympathetic climate change deniers to write a govt climate change report. Anyways, since you posted it here, the following article gives important context on that report. If you're not interested in reading further (/testing your understanding) then I don't see the point in copy and pasting wacky stuff here from your Twitter feed.

Contents of the article addressing the climate report by Trump's DoE

Dozens of scientists are scrambling to respond to a report released last week by the US Department of Energy (DoE), which concluded that global warming is “less damaging economically than commonly believed”. The researchers say that the report, written by a small group of scholars who question the scientific consensus on climate change, misrepresents decades of climate science in a bid to repeal a 2009 government ruling that greenhouse gases endanger public welfare. They are now trying to coordinate a unified response, knowing that their arguments could influence a legal battle that is likely to go to the US Supreme Court.

“This little report is basically designed to suppress science, not to enhance it or encourage it,” says Joellen Russell, an oceanographer at the University of Arizona. “It’s awful.”

“I’m gobsmacked,” says Benjamin Santer, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, who spent three decades working at the DoE’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. “It’s a revision of science and a revision of history. We have to respond.”

Some climate researchers are now writing short rebuttals to the scientific arguments made in the DoE report. “The alternative is to do nothing,” says Andrew Dessler, an atmospheric scientist at Texas A&M University in College Station, who is helping to coordinate one effort. “I just don’t think I can do that.”

The DoE declined to address criticisms of the science laid out in the report, but a spokesperson said that the document’s five authors were recruited by the US energy secretary Chris Wright — a former oil and gas executive — and that they “represent diverse viewpoints and political backgrounds and are all well-respected and highly credentialled individuals”. The report, the spokesperson adds, was reviewed internally at the agency, and the DoE is now opening it up to “wider peer review from the scientific community and the general public”, with the comment period ending on 2 September.... article continues

Resource that can be used to compare the report author's claims against accepted scientific understanding - they also identify any potential conflicts of interest

Climate misinformation by source: John Christy

Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.

skepticalscience.com

For if you wanted to compare what the authors claims actually are vs what the established scientific understanding is

Does all that validation work include pondering why all the climate armageddon scenarios/scare mongering over the past 30 years have not eventuated?

 

[Uber Eagle 72]

What do DCE and Trump have in common? They are genuinely strongly disliked and scapegoated by most members of this forum. 😜

 

[Brookie1973]

What do DCE and Trump have in common? They are genuinely strongly disliked and scapegoated by most members of this forum. 😜

TDS is aptly named, fed by a 24 hour diet of CNN and MSNBC. DDS however I can get on board with.

 

[Brookie1973]