Discussion > Donald Trump thread
EM, why do you keep asking everyone else to resolve Climate Science's failings? What do Climate Scientists actually get paid to do, if they can't work out why their sums don't work?
golf charlie
golfCharlie. You are being a little harsh about our toiling climate modellers. They do get their maths to work when they predict the past. With considerable skill at data selection they can do this with near 100% accuracy. What other science can claim that? Geologists have to use multiple working hypotheses and egyptology gets it completely bolluxed! But when climate numerology predicts a thousand years into the future they're in somewhat of a bind because they cannot wait that long for proof, and so won't get their well deserved individual Nobel prizes. Fortunately politicians and other good folk believe in them because of their tremendously accurate hindcasting and award them books of plane tickets.
Charlie, why are we discussing this on a Donald Trump thread? I think we should desist before we are rumbled by the moderator. Perhaps DT will say something nice about climate science and we will be vindicated. (There must be a joke there about his initials; I'll have a drink to stop the shaking and think about it).
Alan kendall
Martin A
This seems a little extreme.Are you really proposing that we throw out the Maxwell equations, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Schrödinger wave equation, quantum electrodynamics, the Euler equations and the Navier-Stokes equations?
How do you plan to rebuild physics from scratch?
Jun 23, 2016 at 12:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man
A red herring from you EM.
EM - before we go any further, could you*** please write down, from memory, Maxwell's equations (for example), and explain in a few words what they mean in terms of electric and magnetic fields? If you cannot, then let's get it clear that you are waffling on about things of which you have essentially no understanding but trying to make it sound as if you do [a.k.a. as "bullshitting".]
I had said ' Above all, the attitudes and acceptance of things as correctly representing reality on nothing better than "these are the basic equations of the physics". '
I was quoting Dame Julia Mary Slingo, DBE, FRS who, in evidence to Parliament said that (or very similar words) with the clear (and false) implication that the output of Met Office climate models was therefore not open to question.
The point is that making a discrete approximation to equations representing a physical system, and then iterating it through the time and space variables, is very fare from certain to give results that represent reality in any way at all. Even if (and a very bif "if") errors have not been made in the use of the equations, and all the physical constants have been correctly entered. Yet this seems to be an assumption that is automatically taken for granted in computer climate modelling.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
*** You who, a couple of times, has made it clear that you have problems with understanding the basics of logarithms eg apparently being bewildered that that ln(x) = 2.303 log10(x) and, more recently, that ln(x/y) = ln(x) - ln(y), asking if any mathematicians would like to comment on the latter "assumption". And who has made it clear that calculus is not your strong point - let alone partial differential equations.
Martin A
Back to Donald Trump, the subject of this thread.
Donald Trump makes his views clear on climate change: http://uk.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-china-created-climate-change-2016-1
Example:
Donald J. Trump Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
Global warming is based on faulty science and manipulated data which is proven by the emails that were leaked
Martin A
Martin A. Well you have to give it to him. He's consistent, downright repetitive in fact (worrying trait?). Doesn't seem to like China much and blames climate change for their success. Not keen on snow or cold weather either.
Alan kendall
Ak - no I would say that Donald Trump's changes are more worrying than his repetition. And don't forget that that site's quotes are from over a period of several years.
I think he blames China for for unfair business practices rather than for inventing global warming - although it is undoubtedly true that the global warming panic has brought lots of business to China.
He has never mentions that Chinese wages (I am guessing) a tenth or one twentieth the USA wages are one of the reasons why in every town in the USA, Wal-Mart is stuffed with Chinese, rather than American, goods. I'm not at all keen on his idea of restricting trade to bring jobs back to the USA.
When he says one thing and then a day later says "that was obviously a joke" he is shooting form the hip.
I have the impression that with serious matters (eg skyscraper site negotiations) he reflects deeply.
Martin A
MartinA. Agreed, but my worry is that his repetitions might indicate that he forgets what he tweeted before. I suspect he concentrates more when he insults women in the media and plans his golf courses.
With Trump haemorrhaging support, will Republicans pick another candidate at the convention? They may try.
Alan kendall
Martin A
Understanding calculus has not stopped you making foolish statements about climate models.
Entropic man
Did anyone see the interview of Marine Le Pen by Emily Maitlis on BBC Newsnight last night? As she was set to be in the final run-off for Président de la République next year anyway, after last weeks events her chances of actually winning may be much improved.
At the very end of the interview she is asked about Donald Trump, he should perhaps give her a call. The final question on who she'd like for President Of the United States is, Anyone other than Hillary Clinton which she repeats four or five times. Worth watching if you can find it on the iPlayer or Youtube. (I haven't looked)
Trump might also like to talk to Marine Le Pen's niece Marion Maréchal-Le Pen who became the youngest MP in modern times in France also a leading light in the Front Nationale.
SandyS
SandyS on Jun 29, 2016 at 8:02 AM
Thanks.
Here's the link, with 29 days left to watch it @32:27:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07j8mh1
Robert Christopher
Trump must be very encouraged by the Brexit result. It is making the Fearists look particularly stupid and unhelpful.
The Fearists can now live in Fear of what might happen, if they run out of money.Of course there is no certainty this will happen, but it might.
golf charlie
@RC Someone put the clip of Marina La Pen (Newsnight) on Youtube I set it to autoplay at the Trump comment
stewgreen
Has Brexit entirely displaced Trumpy from the BH firmament, or has his poll slippage/lack of funds/haemorrhaging of party support become an embarrassment? I'm sure there is plenty of opposing opinion pieces out there, but is anyone looking? Not for two weeks anyway. Hillary's censure does not seem to have destroyed her lead, although it dented it somewhat. Bet Trumpy was hoping for much much more.
Supertroll
Interesting, now that Donald Trump has been elected next president of the USA, to re-read this thread.
Alan kendall (A.K.A. Supertroll, A.K.A. AK) stated earlier in the thread:
I dread the possibility that Trump will get elected. Not for his political views, that's for the American public to judge upon, but because, although eminently electable, he has no political track record and displays little evidence of having any skill there. He comes over as a bully and that won't work in Washington. He will have to work with a largely hostile Republican party (who don't really believe he is one of them), possibly a hostile congress and senate, and perhaps soon a disheartened populus. The better US Presidents of the past (those that got things done and redirected their country), like FDR, Reagan and Johnson, were consummate politicians able to wheeler deal and forge political alliances. I fear Trump doesn't have this heritage, little to no leverage, the existing power structure won't let him function effectively, and the USA will go rudderless.
Jun 13, 2016 at 11:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan kendall
AK's dreads don't seem to have been echoed much either before or after the election. Donald Trump seems to be in the process of what he has always been adept at doing: picking the right people for the job in hand and letting them get on with it.
Martin A
Martin A. I might remind you that the Donald still has several months to go before he assumes office. One thing I note with some trepidation is that the majority of his announced appointees are former colleagues or those important to his electoral success. Yes men are necessary but not as much as those willing and able to offer independent advice.
We shall see.
ACK
The Fearists can now live in Fear of what might happen, if they run out of money.Of course there is no certainty this will happen, but it might.
Jun 29, 2016 at 2:13 PM | golf charlie
ACK, thankfully we are not going to find out whether Clinton's yes men and women were to be more of a legal liability than Clinton.
A week is a long time in politics, and 2016 has 6 more to go. There is still time for the opinion pollsters to mess up again!
golf charlie
The Washington Post picked up on a part of Trump's press conference that many missed.
Twice the PEOTUS said that states which voted for him would be rewarded and states which did not, would not.
Is this how a president should behave?
Entropic man
Heh, here's what was briefly moderated @ WattsUp yesterday:
Orange crowned cock crows,
And so the dawn goes.
===============
kim
The state of US Climate Science, couldn't get much worse.
If US States such as California want to stand by their own legislation that trashes the economy of California, then that is Democracy. If other States are keen to be freed from the oppressive EPA, then that too is Democracy.
As and when the UK is able to free itself of the Climate Change Act, and subsequent oppressive regulations direct from the EU, that too is also Democracy.
golf charlie
The Washington Post picked up on a part of Trump's press conference that many missed.
Twice the PEOTUS said that states which voted for him would be rewarded and states which did not, would not.
Is this how a president should behave?
Jan 12, 2017 at 12:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man
EM, with the way you alter things and make things up, maybe you made the wrong career choice years ago. So Journalism's loss was secondary education's gain.
Watch the not-so-subtle changes that EM inserts:
The Washington Post
President-elect Donald Trump twice suggested at his news conference that states that voted for him overwhelmingly during the election would get special attention from his White House, especially on the issue of jobs and trade
.Entropic man
Twice the PEOTUS said that states which voted for him would>get special attentionbe rewarded(©EMfabrications-'rewarded' is not in TWP report) and states which did not, would not.(©EMfabrications-'did not, would not' is not in TWP report)
Donald Trump made it clear that bringing back industrial jobs to the rust belt and the abandoned mid-west would be a priority. His speech did nothing more than reconfirm that. Those are the states that elected him.
Martin A
Why would US Citizens want the rust belt to spread from State to State, whilst Progressive Democrats prospered?
The rain storms in California's Global Warming Drought stricken land, are a timely reminder, that Climate Science should not be trusted. Trump doesn't.
He doesn't trust or reward those who make up lies either, especially when it comes to dodgy dossiers.
golf charlie
Martin A
Donald Trump made it clear that bringing back industrial jobs to the rust belt and the abandoned mid-west would be a priority.
Those industries are uncompetitive and/or obsolete. How is Trump going to fulfil this fantasy promise?
Entropic man
EM, you are unimaginative at 1:47 PM and diverting from the fact that you were wrong, and badly, at 12:22 PM. Tighten up, please; we depend upon you remaining credible.
===================
kim
A clue about repatriating industry; though labour costs may be much lower elsewhere, total costs need not be.
=========
kim
Martin A
This seems a little extreme.
Are you really proposing that we throw out the Maxwell equations, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Schrödinger wave equation, quantum electrodynamics, the Euler equations and the Navier-Stokes equations?
How do you plan to rebuild physics from scratch?