(12-11-2016 09:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-10-2016 07:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-10-2016 04:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-10-2016 02:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If the current warming is 70% natural and 30% man-caused, and if we can reverse 50% of the man-caused portion with policies, then we will have reversed 15% and 85% will continue.

I don't advocate a return to smokestack industries and smog. What I do advocate is an emphasis on learning to adjust to the changes, even as we act to slow their advance. Changes in what crops are planted where, development of heat resistant strains, etc. The climate has changed many times in the past, but in the past, we could adjust by moving the village a little farther from the lake or by moving our hunting grounds to the north. Not so in this day and age.

But if people like me were excluded from the government, wasn't that suppression of dissent? (Back to the topic)

So to your original comment to me. I don't think suppression of dissent is when the other side doesn't get equal coverage or focus. Suppression is when you actively try to stifle something even if people are pushing for it. Has there been evidence that researchers had to withdraw their findings because they conflicted with a certain narrative? Because if not, all you have are different priorities.

Active exclusion though, would count. Is there evidence that people applying for positions were being excluded because of their stance on climate change? Because right now, it looks like that may be happening, just not in the way one would expect.

What is the evidence that even one skeptic was hired despite his stance on climate change? Where are the dissenters?

"Suppression is when you actively try to stifle something even if people are pushing for it." So, where do you stand on evolution vs. creationism? Some people pushing for both sides.

people expressing certain viewpoints are not often hired by those expressing opposing viewpoints. Obama has his viewpoint, and his administration follows that. If Trump does the same, then it is THE SAME.

If a school board won't hire creationists, and then there is an election and the new school board won't hire evolutionists, which one is suppressing dissent?

Provide me evidence that the current admin either fired or intentionally kept people with specific viewpoints out of the rank and file and you'll have me interested. Until then, it looks like you're trying to place guilt on a group without evidence. I don't need to prove anything since I'm providing evidence of the Trump administration trying to actively find out who attended conferences on the climate. Give me yours.

This isn't about the head of an organization, a position where it makes sense that someone whose views align with the appointer because they have an agenda. This is about rank and file members of an organization who are appearing to be singled out for their understanding of climate science.

I cannot even find a list of people denied jobs because of their Nazi beliefs, or a list of researchers denied funds because of their racist views. That's why I asked for any global warming skeptics employed by the government. It is the same principal used to show bias under Affirmative Action - if the people hired all show one characteristic, it shows bias against people not showing that characteristic. So if Obama's administratration was hiring skeptics proportionally, then it would show no bias. I think they were not, since global warming believers would not want to hire a skeptic. WOuld you? If you, with your beliefs, were an official and and an applicant came in saying there is little or no man made GW, would you hire him despite his beliefs? Be honest, now. It makes as much sense to claim people charged with stamping out bias would hire Klan members for,the sake of balance.

(12-11-2016 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 09:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-10-2016 07:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-10-2016 04:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-10-2016 02:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If the current warming is 70% natural and 30% man-caused, and if we can reverse 50% of the man-caused portion with policies, then we will have reversed 15% and 85% will continue.

I don't advocate a return to smokestack industries and smog. What I do advocate is an emphasis on learning to adjust to the changes, even as we act to slow their advance. Changes in what crops are planted where, development of heat resistant strains, etc. The climate has changed many times in the past, but in the past, we could adjust by moving the village a little farther from the lake or by moving our hunting grounds to the north. Not so in this day and age.

But if people like me were excluded from the government, wasn't that suppression of dissent? (Back to the topic)

So to your original comment to me. I don't think suppression of dissent is when the other side doesn't get equal coverage or focus. Suppression is when you actively try to stifle something even if people are pushing for it. Has there been evidence that researchers had to withdraw their findings because they conflicted with a certain narrative? Because if not, all you have are different priorities.

Active exclusion though, would count. Is there evidence that people applying for positions were being excluded because of their stance on climate change? Because right now, it looks like that may be happening, just not in the way one would expect.

What is the evidence that even one skeptic was hired despite his stance on climate change? Where are the dissenters?

"Suppression is when you actively try to stifle something even if people are pushing for it." So, where do you stand on evolution vs. creationism? Some people pushing for both sides.

people expressing certain viewpoints are not often hired by those expressing opposing viewpoints. Obama has his viewpoint, and his administration follows that. If Trump does the same, then it is THE SAME.

If a school board won't hire creationists, and then there is an election and the new school board won't hire evolutionists, which one is suppressing dissent?

Provide me evidence that the current admin either fired or intentionally kept people with specific viewpoints out of the rank and file and you'll have me interested. Until then, it looks like you're trying to place guilt on a group without evidence. I don't need to prove anything since I'm providing evidence of the Trump administration trying to actively find out who attended conferences on the climate. Give me yours.

This isn't about the head of an organization, a position where it makes sense that someone whose views align with the appointer because they have an agenda. This is about rank and file members of an organization who are appearing to be singled out for their understanding of climate science.

I cannot even find a list of people denied jobs because of their Nazi beliefs, or a list of researchers denied funds because of their racist views. That's why I asked for any global warming skeptics employed by the government. It is the same principal used to show bias under Affirmative Action - if the people hired all show one characteristic, it shows bias against people not showing that characteristic. So if Obama's administratration was hiring skeptics proportionally, then it would show no bias. I think they were not, since global warming believers would not want to hire a skeptic. WOuld you? If you, with your beliefs, were an official and and an applicant came in saying there is little or no man made GW, would you hire him despite his beliefs? Be honest, now. It makes as much sense to claim people charged with stamping out bias would hire Klan members for,the sake of balance.

It would obviously depend on the position they are applying for. The Trump survey was sent to all staff members at the DOE, regardless of their position. So let's say I am hiring for a position that is specifically focused on evaluating the impacts of climate change induced sea level rise on coastal communities. You're right that I would not hire someone who doesn't believe that humans are having an effect on climate change because that could severely impact the work they do. Now let's say I am hiring someone who is studying wind energy markets? I wouldn't even ask about climate change and would not care one way or the other.

My issue with the Trump survey is that it threatens to ostracize and punish people, regardless of their work position, for their belief in a mainstream scientific idea. Heck, it actually is worse, as it really compiles a list of people who have just been involved with studying the topic, by attending things like U.N. conferences.

But back to your question about not hiring climate skeptics. Do you think no government agencies employ climate deniers? The government employs all types of people from all walks of life. I highly doubt that they screen everyone on their climate change opinions.

(12-11-2016 10:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 09:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-10-2016 07:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-10-2016 04:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So to your original comment to me. I don't think suppression of dissent is when the other side doesn't get equal coverage or focus. Suppression is when you actively try to stifle something even if people are pushing for it. Has there been evidence that researchers had to withdraw their findings because they conflicted with a certain narrative? Because if not, all you have are different priorities.

Active exclusion though, would count. Is there evidence that people applying for positions were being excluded because of their stance on climate change? Because right now, it looks like that may be happening, just not in the way one would expect.

What is the evidence that even one skeptic was hired despite his stance on climate change? Where are the dissenters?

"Suppression is when you actively try to stifle something even if people are pushing for it." So, where do you stand on evolution vs. creationism? Some people pushing for both sides.

people expressing certain viewpoints are not often hired by those expressing opposing viewpoints. Obama has his viewpoint, and his administration follows that. If Trump does the same, then it is THE SAME.

If a school board won't hire creationists, and then there is an election and the new school board won't hire evolutionists, which one is suppressing dissent?

Provide me evidence that the current admin either fired or intentionally kept people with specific viewpoints out of the rank and file and you'll have me interested. Until then, it looks like you're trying to place guilt on a group without evidence. I don't need to prove anything since I'm providing evidence of the Trump administration trying to actively find out who attended conferences on the climate. Give me yours.

This isn't about the head of an organization, a position where it makes sense that someone whose views align with the appointer because they have an agenda. This is about rank and file members of an organization who are appearing to be singled out for their understanding of climate science.

I cannot even find a list of people denied jobs because of their Nazi beliefs, or a list of researchers denied funds because of their racist views. That's why I asked for any global warming skeptics employed by the government. It is the same principal used to show bias under Affirmative Action - if the people hired all show one characteristic, it shows bias against people not showing that characteristic. So if Obama's administratration was hiring skeptics proportionally, then it would show no bias. I think they were not, since global warming believers would not want to hire a skeptic. WOuld you? If you, with your beliefs, were an official and and an applicant came in saying there is little or no man made GW, would you hire him despite his beliefs? Be honest, now. It makes as much sense to claim people charged with stamping out bias would hire Klan members for,the sake of balance.

It would obviously depend on the position they are applying for. The Trump survey was sent to all staff members at the DOE, regardless of their position. So let's say I am hiring for a position that is specifically focused on evaluating the impacts of climate change induced sea level rise on coastal communities. You're right that I would not hire someone who doesn't believe that humans are having an effect on climate change because that could severely impact the work they do. Now let's say I am hiring someone who is studying wind energy markets? I wouldn't even ask about climate change and would not care one way or the other.

My issue with the Trump survey is that it threatens to ostracize and punish people, regardless of their work position, for their belief in a mainstream scientific idea. Heck, it actually is worse, as it really compiles a list of people who have just been involved with studying the topic, by attending things like U.N. conferences.

But back to your question about not hiring climate skeptics. Do you think no government agencies employ climate deniers? The government employs all types of people from all walks of life. I highly doubt that they screen everyone on their climate change opinions.

Oh, I am sure there may be some people in the Marshall's service or the FBI who are not true believers. I thought we were talking about people involved in making and enforcing environmental regulations.

Getting back to basics, does packing the Administration with people who reflect the beliefs of the leader constitutive suppression of dissent? If so, it has been a hallmark of Admistrations since forever.

So, if you were working for the EPA, and lost your job to me in 2017, and in 2020, Hillary wins a redo and replaces me with you, who is suppressing dissent?

(12-11-2016 10:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 10:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 09:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-10-2016 07:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What is the evidence that even one skeptic was hired despite his stance on climate change? Where are the dissenters?

"Suppression is when you actively try to stifle something even if people are pushing for it." So, where do you stand on evolution vs. creationism? Some people pushing for both sides.

people expressing certain viewpoints are not often hired by those expressing opposing viewpoints. Obama has his viewpoint, and his administration follows that. If Trump does the same, then it is THE SAME.

If a school board won't hire creationists, and then there is an election and the new school board won't hire evolutionists, which one is suppressing dissent?

Provide me evidence that the current admin either fired or intentionally kept people with specific viewpoints out of the rank and file and you'll have me interested. Until then, it looks like you're trying to place guilt on a group without evidence. I don't need to prove anything since I'm providing evidence of the Trump administration trying to actively find out who attended conferences on the climate. Give me yours.

This isn't about the head of an organization, a position where it makes sense that someone whose views align with the appointer because they have an agenda. This is about rank and file members of an organization who are appearing to be singled out for their understanding of climate science.

I cannot even find a list of people denied jobs because of their Nazi beliefs, or a list of researchers denied funds because of their racist views. That's why I asked for any global warming skeptics employed by the government. It is the same principal used to show bias under Affirmative Action - if the people hired all show one characteristic, it shows bias against people not showing that characteristic. So if Obama's administratration was hiring skeptics proportionally, then it would show no bias. I think they were not, since global warming believers would not want to hire a skeptic. WOuld you? If you, with your beliefs, were an official and and an applicant came in saying there is little or no man made GW, would you hire him despite his beliefs? Be honest, now. It makes as much sense to claim people charged with stamping out bias would hire Klan members for,the sake of balance.

It would obviously depend on the position they are applying for. The Trump survey was sent to all staff members at the DOE, regardless of their position. So let's say I am hiring for a position that is specifically focused on evaluating the impacts of climate change induced sea level rise on coastal communities. You're right that I would not hire someone who doesn't believe that humans are having an effect on climate change because that could severely impact the work they do. Now let's say I am hiring someone who is studying wind energy markets? I wouldn't even ask about climate change and would not care one way or the other.

My issue with the Trump survey is that it threatens to ostracize and punish people, regardless of their work position, for their belief in a mainstream scientific idea. Heck, it actually is worse, as it really compiles a list of people who have just been involved with studying the topic, by attending things like U.N. conferences.

But back to your question about not hiring climate skeptics. Do you think no government agencies employ climate deniers? The government employs all types of people from all walks of life. I highly doubt that they screen everyone on their climate change opinions.

Oh, I am sure there may be some people in the Marshall's service or the FBI who are not true believers. I thought we were talking about people involved in making and enforcing environmental regulations.

Getting back to basics, does packing the Administration with people who reflect the beliefs of the leader constitutive suppression of dissent? If so, it has been a hallmark of Admistrations since forever.

So, if you were working for the EPA, and lost your job to me in 2017, and in 2020, Hillary wins a redo and replaces me with you, who is suppressing dissent?

This has never been explicitly about environmental regs or the EPA. Did you ever read the article I posted?

(12-11-2016 10:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 10:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 10:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 09:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Provide me evidence that the current admin either fired or intentionally kept people with specific viewpoints out of the rank and file and you'll have me interested. Until then, it looks like you're trying to place guilt on a group without evidence. I don't need to prove anything since I'm providing evidence of the Trump administration trying to actively find out who attended conferences on the climate. Give me yours.

This isn't about the head of an organization, a position where it makes sense that someone whose views align with the appointer because they have an agenda. This is about rank and file members of an organization who are appearing to be singled out for their understanding of climate science.

I cannot even find a list of people denied jobs because of their Nazi beliefs, or a list of researchers denied funds because of their racist views. That's why I asked for any global warming skeptics employed by the government. It is the same principal used to show bias under Affirmative Action - if the people hired all show one characteristic, it shows bias against people not showing that characteristic. So if Obama's administratration was hiring skeptics proportionally, then it would show no bias. I think they were not, since global warming believers would not want to hire a skeptic. WOuld you? If you, with your beliefs, were an official and and an applicant came in saying there is little or no man made GW, would you hire him despite his beliefs? Be honest, now. It makes as much sense to claim people charged with stamping out bias would hire Klan members for,the sake of balance.

It would obviously depend on the position they are applying for. The Trump survey was sent to all staff members at the DOE, regardless of their position. So let's say I am hiring for a position that is specifically focused on evaluating the impacts of climate change induced sea level rise on coastal communities. You're right that I would not hire someone who doesn't believe that humans are having an effect on climate change because that could severely impact the work they do. Now let's say I am hiring someone who is studying wind energy markets? I wouldn't even ask about climate change and would not care one way or the other.

My issue with the Trump survey is that it threatens to ostracize and punish people, regardless of their work position, for their belief in a mainstream scientific idea. Heck, it actually is worse, as it really compiles a list of people who have just been involved with studying the topic, by attending things like U.N. conferences.

But back to your question about not hiring climate skeptics. Do you think no government agencies employ climate deniers? The government employs all types of people from all walks of life. I highly doubt that they screen everyone on their climate change opinions.

Oh, I am sure there may be some people in the Marshall's service or the FBI who are not true believers. I thought we were talking about people involved in making and enforcing environmental regulations.

Getting back to basics, does packing the Administration with people who reflect the beliefs of the leader constitutive suppression of dissent? If so, it has been a hallmark of Admistrations since forever.

So, if you were working for the EPA, and lost your job to me in 2017, and in 2020, Hillary wins a redo and replaces me with you, who is suppressing dissent?

This has never been explicitly about environmental regs or the EPA. Did you ever read the article I posted?

Yes, if you mean the one about a shake up in Energy policy. Maybe you need to retread it.

Not the most important issue, but why does Trump keep making the absurdly false claim that he won a landslide in the electoral college, on at least one occasion saying it was one of the largest margins in history. All you have to do is look at past elections to see that that is false. Like 2012. Or 2008. Or 1996. Or 1992. Or 1988. Or 1984. Or 1980. In other every election other than W since Carter won in 1976.

Now it *is* unprecedented to lose the popular vote so badly and still win the EC, but I don't think that's the point he's trying to make.

(12-12-2016 01:12 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Not the most important issue, but why does Trump keep making the absurdly false claim that he won a landslide in the electoral college, on at least one occasion saying it was one of the largest margins in history. All you have to do is look at past elections to see that that is false. Like 2012. Or 2008. Or 1996. Or 1992. Or 1988. Or 1984. Or 1980. In other every election other than W since Carter won in 1976.

Now it *is* unprecedented to lose the popular vote so badly and still win the EC, but I don't think that's the point he's trying to make.

I agree, his win was nowhere near near a historical landslide.

Maybe (that's maybe, as in maybe not) though, your "unprecedented" adjective is also unwarranted. How much is Clinton's differential? Tilden beat Hayes by 3%, 50.9% to 47.9%, yet lost the Electoral College in 1876.

1876

(12-12-2016 01:12 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Not the most important issue, but why does Trump keep making the absurdly false claim that he won a landslide in the electoral college, on at least one occasion saying it was one of the largest margins in history. All you have to do is look at past elections to see that that is false. Like 2012. Or 2008. Or 1996. Or 1992. Or 1988. Or 1984. Or 1980. In other every election other than W since Carter won in 1976.

Now it *is* unprecedented to lose the popular vote so badly and still win the EC, but I don't think that's the point he's trying to make.

Actually, Trump's popular vote percentage was greater than that of Lincoln in 1960, Wilson in 1912, Clinton in 1992, Nixon in 1968 and Buchanan in 1956.

Something like 17 presidents have won the Electoral College without winning the popular vote. Bill Clinton has the dubious distinction of having done so twice, as did Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson.

(12-12-2016 05:17 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-12-2016 01:12 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Not the most important issue, but why does Trump keep making the absurdly false claim that he won a landslide in the electoral college, on at least one occasion saying it was one of the largest margins in history. All you have to do is look at past elections to see that that is false. Like 2012. Or 2008. Or 1996. Or 1992. Or 1988. Or 1984. Or 1980. In other every election other than W since Carter won in 1976.

Now it *is* unprecedented to lose the popular vote so badly and still win the EC, but I don't think that's the point he's trying to make.

Actually, Trump's popular vote percentage was greater than that of Lincoln in 1960, Wilson in 1912, Clinton in 1992, Nixon in 1968 and Buchanan in 1956.

Something like 17 presidents have won the Electoral College without winning the popular vote. Bill Clinton has the dubious distinction of having done so twice, as did Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson.

Nice try - they still won a plurality of the popular vote. Trump is one of four (?) to win the electoral college while someone else won a plurality or majority.

The Hayes example OO mentions is a better rejoinder to my use of "unprecedented", I think. He won by one electoral vote and his opponent actually won a majority of the popular vote.

Point to OO.

(12-12-2016 03:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-12-2016 01:12 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Not the most important issue, but why does Trump keep making the absurdly false claim that he won a landslide in the electoral college, on at least one occasion saying it was one of the largest margins in history. All you have to do is look at past elections to see that that is false. Like 2012. Or 2008. Or 1996. Or 1992. Or 1988. Or 1984. Or 1980. In other every election other than W since Carter won in 1976.

Now it *is* unprecedented to lose the popular vote so badly and still win the EC, but I don't think that's the point he's trying to make.

I agree, his win was nowhere near near a historical landslide.

Maybe (that's maybe, as in maybe not) though, your "unprecedented" adjective is also unwarranted. How much is Clinton's differential? Tilden beat Hayes by 3%, 50.9% to 47.9%, yet lost the Electoral College in 1876.

1876

Depends on how you measure the differential. If you go by total votes, it is unprecedented (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...116.html).

I do prefer the % difference though since it normalizes the data, but it is much harder to get a 3% difference now. I think Hillary is sitting close to 2% but has a 2.8 million vote lead.

(12-12-2016 05:29 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(12-12-2016 05:17 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-12-2016 01:12 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Not the most important issue, but why does Trump keep making the absurdly false claim that he won a landslide in the electoral college, on at least one occasion saying it was one of the largest margins in history. All you have to do is look at past elections to see that that is false. Like 2012. Or 2008. Or 1996. Or 1992. Or 1988. Or 1984. Or 1980. In other every election other than W since Carter won in 1976.

Now it *is* unprecedented to lose the popular vote so badly and still win the EC, but I don't think that's the point he's trying to make.

Actually, Trump's popular vote percentage was greater than that of Lincoln in 1960, Wilson in 1912, Clinton in 1992, Nixon in 1968 and Buchanan in 1956.

Something like 17 presidents have won the Electoral College without winning the popular vote. Bill Clinton has the dubious distinction of having done so twice, as did Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson.

Nice try - they still won a plurality of the popular vote.

Nice try yourself. Winning a plurality of the popular vote is NOT winning the popular vote. Anyone older than a fourth grader knows that, and certainly every Rice student or alum does as well (that's why we had preferential ballots in Rice elections). The fact is that five presidents won the Electoral College while being rejected by a greater proportion of the voters than Trump was. Thus, in the way that matters, Trump's result not "unprecedented" at all. Point against JAAO.

You're giving a lot of credit to 5th graders. And 6th graders. And most middle schoolers and high schoolers.

The nomination of Rick Perry to Secretary of Energy is disturbing - the last four held credentials such as MIT PhD in physics and chemical engineering, Berkeley PhD in physics and Harvard Law. Now we can add Bachelor of Animal Science from Texas A&M among them. I'm assuming that day one of Perry's new job will involve someone explaining to him the difference between nuclear fission and nuclear fusion.

(12-12-2016 07:57 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  You're giving a lot of credit to 5th graders. And 6th graders. And most middle schoolers and high schoolers.

Perhaps to today's MS and HS students, but not to my 5th grade class

(12-13-2016 09:03 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  The nomination of Rick Perry to Secretary of Energy is disturbing - the last four held credentials such as MIT PhD in physics and chemical engineering, Berkeley PhD in physics and Harvard Law. Now we can add Bachelor of Animal Science from Texas A&M among them. I'm assuming that day one of Perry's new job will involve someone explaining to him the difference between nuclear fission and nuclear fusion.

I suppose it's troubling if you assume that a PhD in the sciences is a requirement for the position. But it's not sitting in a lab figuring out new energy sources, it's presiding over a large bureaucracy. And for that job description, long-time governor of a major energy producing state is probably a far more relevant qualification. Besides, those PhD's haven't exactly acquitted themselves with distinction, and a couple of them in particular seemed incapable of grasping some pretty basic realities.

I'm not a fan of Perry, so I'm not a fan of the Perry pick. I would have preferred Huntsman. In fact, there are several appointments for which I would have preferred Huntsman over Trump's choice.

Agree with Owlnumber's assessment.

I think Trump is putting lots of people in charge of organizations based on their history of managing the business aspects of such endeavors... and counting on them to hire the PhD's to advise them on the practicality of the various issues. Much in the way that any good corporation/team doesn't always have an 'expert in all areas' at the helm... but instead puts an expert at 'being at the helm' at the helm.

We can debate whether or not Perry is that person, but Similarly, Rice's President is one of few non PhD's in the position, no?

(12-12-2016 07:26 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-12-2016 05:29 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(12-12-2016 05:17 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-12-2016 01:12 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Not the most important issue, but why does Trump keep making the absurdly false claim that he won a landslide in the electoral college, on at least one occasion saying it was one of the largest margins in history. All you have to do is look at past elections to see that that is false. Like 2012. Or 2008. Or 1996. Or 1992. Or 1988. Or 1984. Or 1980. In other every election other than W since Carter won in 1976.

Now it *is* unprecedented to lose the popular vote so badly and still win the EC, but I don't think that's the point he's trying to make.

Actually, Trump's popular vote percentage was greater than that of Lincoln in 1960, Wilson in 1912, Clinton in 1992, Nixon in 1968 and Buchanan in 1956.

Something like 17 presidents have won the Electoral College without winning the popular vote. Bill Clinton has the dubious distinction of having done so twice, as did Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson.

Nice try - they still won a plurality of the popular vote.

Nice try yourself. Winning a plurality of the popular vote is NOT winning the popular vote. Anyone older than a fourth grader knows that, and certainly every Rice student or alum does as well (that's why we had preferential ballots in Rice elections). The fact is that five presidents won the Electoral College while being rejected by a greater proportion of the voters than Trump was. Thus, in the way that matters, Trump's result not "unprecedented" at all. Point against JAAO.

Au contraire, young lad - this wikipedia entry clearly equates 'losing the popular vote' with failing to win a plurality. And even a 3rd grader knows everything on the internet is true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...pular_vote

(12-13-2016 11:36 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Au contraire, young lad - this wikipedia entry clearly equates 'losing the popular vote' with failing to win a plurality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...pular_vote

Not anymore!

(12-13-2016 10:28 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2016 09:03 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  The nomination of Rick Perry to Secretary of Energy is disturbing - the last four held credentials such as MIT PhD in physics and chemical engineering, Berkeley PhD in physics and Harvard Law. Now we can add Bachelor of Animal Science from Texas A&M among them. I'm assuming that day one of Perry's new job will involve someone explaining to him the difference between nuclear fission and nuclear fusion.

I suppose it's troubling if you assume that a PhD in the sciences is a requirement for the position. But it's not sitting in a lab figuring out new energy sources, it's presiding over a large bureaucracy. And for that job description, long-time governor of a major energy producing state is probably a far more relevant qualification. Besides, those PhD's haven't exactly acquitted themselves with distinction, and a couple of them in particular seemed incapable of grasping some pretty basic realities.

I'm not a fan of Perry, so I'm not a fan of the Perry pick. I would have preferred Huntsman. In fact, there are several appointments for which I would have preferred Huntsman over Trump's choice.

Please back up this statement with some evidence that you can cite.

I agree with the idea that having a PhD is likely not a requirement for the DOE, but the DOE is so research oriented that I would believe that someone well versed in energy research would be an asset in directing the department.

Per Whitehouse.gov:

Quote:The Department of Energy (DOE) is charged with advancing the national, economic, and energy security of the United States; promoting scientific and technological innovation in support of that mission; and ensuring the environmental cleanup of the national nuclear weapons complex.

And from Wikipedia:

Quote: Its responsibilities include the nation's nuclear weapons program, nuclear reactor production for the United States Navy, energy conservation, energy-related research, radioactive waste disposal, and domestic energy production. It also directs research in genomics; the Human Genome Project originated in a DOE initiative.[3] DOE sponsors more research in the physical sciences than any other U.S. federal agency, the majority of which is conducted through its system of National Laboratories.

These two descriptions make it clear why someone with an aptitude for conducting scientific research is well suited to lead the DOE. So while you're right that this position doesn't consist of sitting in a lab doing the research, it just consists of presiding directly over the National Labs doing the research.

And furthermore, the comment about sitting in a lab vastly over-simplifies what a PhD student does and completely misses the mark on the life of a post-doctoral PhD (especially one in position to run the DOE). The life after a PhD for a succesful doctorate holder is hardly just sitting in a lab running research. If they stay in academia, tt generally involves some of that, but the majority of the work is managing teams, both big and small, navigating complex funding systems, negotiating with multiple stake holders for various reasons, and finding ways to accomplish tasks that are generally hard to accomplish. If they leave academia, a lot of PhD's obviously end up in industry, but plenty more move into policy where they can use their expertise in their field and navigating political minefields to their advantage.

Plus, people with a PhD looking to run the DOE are not just some lab rat.

I don't think not having a PhD is a disqualifier, but for the DOE, I think it is one of the departments where it is extremely beneficial.

(12-13-2016 11:20 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Agree with Owlnumber's assessment.

I think Trump is putting lots of people in charge of organizations based on their history of managing the business aspects of such endeavors... and counting on them to hire the PhD's to advise them on the practicality of the various issues. Much in the way that any good corporation/team doesn't always have an 'expert in all areas' at the helm... but instead puts an expert at 'being at the helm' at the helm.

We can debate whether or not Perry is that person, but Similarly, Rice's President is one of few non PhD's in the position, no?

Well, let's just hope the DOE wasn't the third department Perry couldn't remember...