This is what NASA has become. It’s a sad day in history.
http://dailysignal.com/2010/07/06/nasas-new-mission-muslim-outreach-and-uninspired-futility/
In a far-reaching restatement of goals for the nation’s space agency, NASA administrator Charles Bolden says President Obama has ordered him to pursue three new objectives: to “re-inspire children” to study science and math, to “expand our international relationships,” and to “reach out to the Muslim world.” Of those three goals, Bolden said in a recent interview with al-Jazeera, the mission to reach out to Muslims is “perhaps foremost,” because it will help Islamic nations “feel good” about their scientific accomplishments. In the same interview, Bolden also said the United States, which first sent men to the moon in 1969, is no longer capable of reaching beyond low earth orbit without help from other nations.
So. has NASA gone rogue and decided to take on global warming in it’s spare time?
I guess they’ve already achieved their mission of reaching out to Muslims so they can feel good about themselves.
Although you could have fooled me.
Oh and by the way, does anyone know what scientific accomplishments Charles Bolden is speaking of?
http://dailysignal.com/2010/07/06/nasas-new-mission-muslim-outreach-and-uninspired-futility/
In a far-reaching restatement of goals for the nation’s space agency, NASA administrator Charles Bolden says President Obama has ordered him to pursue three new objectives: to “re-inspire children” to study science and math, to “expand our international relationships,” and to “reach out to the Muslim world.” Of those three goals, Bolden said in a recent interview with al-Jazeera, the mission to reach out to Muslims is “perhaps foremost,” because it will help Islamic nations “feel good” about their scientific accomplishments. In the same interview, Bolden also said the United States, which first sent men to the moon in 1969, is no longer capable of reaching beyond low earth orbit without help from other nations.
So. has NASA gone rogue and decided to take on global warming in it’s spare time?
I guess they’ve already achieved their mission of reaching out to Muslims so they can feel good about themselves.
Although you could have fooled me.
Oh and by the way, does anyone know what scientific accomplishments Charles Bolden is speaking of?
No, NASA posted a table that showed statistical probabilities based on their uncertainty levels. They did not say they are 38% sure 2014 is the hottest record. That is what the Daily Mail said, which is incorrect, because they do not understand what the 38% means. NASA tried to explain it, but it appears you are too dumb to understand it.
You clearly do not understand statistics. The 38% they are listing does not mean they are 38% sure 2014 is the hottest record and does not mean there is a 38% chance the actual value of 2014 is the hottest record. It has nothing to do with what they believe the actual value is. It deals with uncertainty levels of their model. A better way to put it is given the possibility of an uncertain event, 2014 still has a 38% probability of being the hottest year.
You really are very dumb. No chance in hell you took advance statistics.
They try to give you a hint here, but I'm sure this will go right over your head because of how dumb you are...
An uncertainty range "does ***NOT*** mean" that each temperature within the given range is "equally likely," Arndt says.
"It resoundingly and definitively means something fundamentally different. Gavin's slide from the presentation shows this pretty beautifully," he said.
An uncertainty range "does ***NOT*** mean" that each temperature within the given range is "equally likely," Arndt says.
"It resoundingly and definitively means something fundamentally different. Gavin's slide from the presentation shows this pretty beautifully," he said.
Former Harvard Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl: 'According to NOAA, the probability that a different year than 2014 was the warmest one was 52%.
According to NASA, the probability that a different year than 2014 was the warmest one was 62%.'
And yet....the Fraud in Chief says this:
"The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe.” - Obama's State of Confusion
Embarrassing.
face)(*^%
It's difficult to comprehend for those not mathematically inclined. They are not saying they are 38% sure that the value that their model came up with is correct. The way it is understood by mathematicians is that there is a 38% probability that if an uncertain event were to happen in the modeling calculation that the value of their calculation would still be higher than any other year. This does NOT mean there is a 38% probability that their model is accurate as uncertainty does NOT imply an equal distribution within the margin of error. So basically they are saying IF an uncertain event happened (which the probability of is not defined), there is a possibility that another year is the hottest. There is not a 62% probability that the result of the calculation from another year is the hottest.
It's interpreted in a completely different way for mathematicians. Which is why they are saying that the Daily Mail article is not accurate. But, conservatives will still believe some random blogger rather than actual scientists and mathematicians.
It's interpreted in a completely different way for mathematicians. Which is why they are saying that the Daily Mail article is not accurate. But, conservatives will still believe some random blogger rather than actual scientists and mathematicians.
"The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe.”
Hmmm....who should we believe - real scientists or some liberal arts college punk who flunked out?
I know, I know, so difficult. I think we would should all sleep on it, lol.
The "climate" has been "changin" for millions of years.
But do tell us again how NY and FL will be underwater and about those coming catastrophic "floods and droughts if we don't act forcefully"?
Loser!@#0
"The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe.”
Unbelievable, isn't it?
And the fucking idiot can't even say, "RADICAL ISLAM"
Elections have consequences.
The actual scientists and mathematicians behind these calculations. You're really dumb...
NASA and NOAA scientists say they have not changed their tune about 2014, since the data clearly shows that it was most likely the warmest year to date since instrument records began in 1880. Furthermore, they argue that climate skeptics are twisting the meaning of uncertainty ranges and making it seem like there is far less confidence in temperature data than there actually is.
Climate science debates occur every day in the blogosphere and on cable news shows, but this particular fight about a major temperature record (and therefore, major news story) highlights the extent to which many boil down to mere contradiction and rejections of facts, rather than arguments based on competing lines of evidence.
Schmidt said the uncertainties were "plainly and clearly discussed at the NASA/NOAA press conference on Friday." He referred to a slide in the presentation provided to reporters and the public, as well as the audio from a press conference, where the odds of 2014 being the warmest year are discussed around minute 13:47.
Deke Arndt, the head of the climate monitoring branch of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina, told Mashable that his agency's characterization of uncertainty estimates were also being misconstrued by numerous bloggers and journalists.
Arndt says many journalists and skeptic bloggers in particular are making a basic mistake in interpreting what a range of uncertainty means.
"The entire community of journalists, well-meaning colleagues, bloggers would do well to remember that a "range of uncertainty" has a shape of its own," Arndt said.
An uncertainty range "does ***NOT*** mean" that each temperature within the given range is "equally likely," Arndt says.
"It resoundingly and definitively means something fundamentally different. Gavin's slide from the presentation shows this pretty beautifully," he said.
