This drive-by-wire stuff is very serious. I seriously doubt that any car manufacturer validates their computer software and hardware as rigorously as the Dept of Defense; in fact they probably don't do compiler or chip logic validation at all. I bet the aviation industry could give them guidance in this arena.
Well obviously the GP was a sales exec at the medical supply company.
One of the references (to 'behemoth') can be found in Job 40, which many scholars consider to be the earliest Hebrew Scripture:
15 "Look at the behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength he has in his loins,
what power in the muscles of his belly!
17 His tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
18 His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like rods of iron."
Some scholars believe the writer is referring to an elephant or a hippo, but other scholars note that the phrase in verse 17 comparing the animal's tail to a cedar sounds more like an overall description of a dinosaur, since that particular phrase would not accurately describe the tail of the elephant or hippo.
Besides 'behemoth', the word 'leviathan' also appears in Hebrew Scriptures to describe enormous animals.
They are NOT stupid. They are corrupt. The voting positions of politicians are based almost entirely on campaign contributions, not on any moral or logical consideration. That is why I feel that modifying campaign finance laws so that you can only give money to a candidate for whom you can cast a vote would go a long ways toward cleaning up this mess. This would mean that corporations and unions and foreign individuals could no longer contribute to any candidate because those entities cannot cast a vote.
Regarding robust code, I was thinking of the Linux community when I suggested open sourcing the climate software...I am sure this statement will be debated but I perceive that the Linux community effort produces continuous improvement and it was that kind of concept I felt could unify more people in the global warming debate; at a minimum I would hope it would prevent the current science credibility issue.
I am not ready to accept that there was no dishonesty in the task. The e-mails clearly call out tricks to suppress undesirable results as well as methods to dilute the credibility of dissenting opinions.
At any rate, thanks for taking the time to respond and broaden my understanding of the academic process associated with this issue. We all want a solution and the confidence that our taxes are spent wisely
The best way to restore healthy debate on climate change science is to open source everything...the data, the source code for the computer models, and the methodology for how the data is collected: specific locations of data collection (is it a rural area, a parking lot in a city, on a school roof, in direct sunlight or in the shade), date and time of day (noon, midnight, 5pm), weather conditions at the time it is collected (sunny, raining, under a snow drift), age of the equipment (mercury thermometer installed in 1953 or digital sensor device). All of these factors would influence a simple temperature reading. Heck there are probably dozens of other factors that I am not considering.
Since our government is PAYING for so much of this research it should be no problem to PUBLISH all of these details and let everyone debate from a common framework. However, I believe our government has an agenda and therefore won't ever take such a logical approach.
While we are at it, let's do the same thing for how inflation, unemployment, public health statistics, education metrics, and poverty rates are calculated.
How is that working out for Michigan?