Delano

The average household income in Cambridge is about $99,000. So they are paying very well.

They say it's real. The second slide is basically their mission statement. And a synopsis of what they do and how they operate. They say 81% of the funds are for programs and only 4% is for administrative costs . However looking at their tax documents about 60% of the funds raised pays gir salaries. The average salary being 90,000 a year.

Payroll is 18mil divided by 201. Means the average salary is $90,000. And there are no volunteers. That's about $45 per hour.

@Mel Hopkins @Cynique @Pioneer1 have a read and tell me your views.

You are conflating your inability to understand a situation with my reasoning. So I will help clarify the issue. Read the three links from the Union of Concerned Scientists. A not for profit that has the task of combating climate change. The second link states 80% of the funding they receive goes to programs. So that's good. Next I read their annual report. I want to see their financials. There are no Balance Sheets or Income Statements. So I search for their tax filings. Every year they receive $30 mil in contributions. Salaries are $18 mil. Can you do that math? I am posting this for people that are capable of thinking. The Union of Concerned Scientists are making misleading statements and hiding the numbers. That's what these "Scientists" are all about, Troy.

@Troy Do you honestly think it is good science? The answer is you don't know. But you're less likely to believe me then people who have an agenda. I didn't have an opinion until I looked at the data. Troy thats is my whole point. You should question the data and the methodology. it may take another before climate change is exposed.

@Troy you belive the scientist are right. The underlying data says it is a fiction. You believe because you can't analyse the data. You don't even realise they haven't posted the source data. You don't realise they arent using actual temperatures. You don't realise they are adjusting the temperature then using a percentage and using 1980 as the base. I don't have a problem of you being ignorant of those facts. But you haven't checked one of those statements. So I can't take you serious.

When i correct your usage of terms you say I'm technically right. Troy you don't understand the climate change model. I had to explain to you that there's isn't one credible predictive model. It is based only on data from the mid 1980. And they don't use the temperature. They are using changes in temperature. So my post has no errors. Can you fix your faulty reasoning. STOP using terms you don't understand. Your better than that or at least you should be better... Having an engineering degrees isn't assisting you in statistics or logic. Find one credible statistical model that proves climate change. Also how is it you want me to teach you statistics so you can understand what was presented. You can't find one credible model. Nor can you interpret its results. So when you have either looked at the source data or their model and have critiqued it let me know. Otherwise you are luxuriating in ignorance. You have studied much more math than I. The reverse is true of statistics. Or do you believe that you understand statistics better than myself? An opinion can be logically sound yet be false.

Troy when people say technically you are right. They are implying that you are wrong in the other part of your argument or statement. you are equating my disageeeing with you as my being wrong. i am using standard definitions. So your use of valid is technically wrong although it is correct in your mind. i am being stringent. you can use logic or numbers to make a point . However if you're bending it like Wreckum, I am going to call it.

Troy Vanilla ice cream is the best. And if you can't see that you are being illogical and unreasonable. Is that clearer to You. There's a difference amongst the following opinions beliefs arguments. I can have an opinion that is wrong but I cant see why it is wrong.

Troy that's funny. it's been going on for a bit. Its interesting not to be involved for a change. You and Pioneer are more fixed. Cynique is less fixed but will considereal other views. Mel us pretty open until the ither conversant stops either thinking or listening. But it is entertaining.

Troy how can an opinion be invalid? Pioneer has a valid conclusion. which can't be validated. But that doesn't invalidate it.

@Troy read this since you are confusing a valid and true conclusion. Premise: all horses are brown Premise: X is a horse Conclusion: from premise 1 and 2 follows that X is brown However, suppose that X in fact isn't brown, but white (meaning that either X isn't a horse - premise 2 is false -, or not all horses are brown - premise 1 is false). The reasoning leading to the conclusion is logically valid, it's a valid reasoning, but the conclusion is not true, because we started with false premises

Even though I don't agree his argument is reasonable. Man that was a really powerful eclipse.

i dont agree with his conclusion that its a person. yet i think it is a reasonable and logical conclusion. based on his analogy.

Pioneer says someone, which was implies a person. However I don't see the creator as a person. Although that is a reasonable assumption for Pioneer to make. at least it is from my perspective.

Yes I said that but where did i mention the creator as a person

@Cynique what part of my post implied a creator was a person?

You are mixing belief and logic. Troy it is both reasonable and logical to assume either position. They are both valid arguments. However neither is provable. My position is that numbers were created not discovered. Which would make all mathematically based or proved science a belief system. i used to believe we had free will. Now i think it operates maybe 25% of the time or less. And only in situations where a real choice exists. This is due to some things i have found in the psychic realm. My current belief is that we are following a script. Which means we don't have free will. However we wrote the script. Since we are here to learn. The easiest way of seeing this is look at both your frustrations and what gives you the most joy. Since they are probably the same, just poles apart. So we are gods. And we are all connected. The sum total of all positive expression would be a Creator. And the counterbalancing force of negativity is the destroyer. And the individual sustains both those energies internally. Brahma The Creator Shiva The Destroyer Vishnu The Sustainer. Yes but i have a real difficulty agreeing with Pioneer. For a whole hosts of reasons.

i cant believe this but I am going to disagree with you Troy. What?! @Pioneer1 that statement is illogical. If it is true then who created the "Someone" that Troy you are confusing truth and validity. Pioneer made a conclusion or rather an inference that follows his statement. I don't know if Pioneer said this or not. So if I am repeating your statement my apologies Pioneer. if something is created then it has a creator. You could argue whether the Universe was created. You could also argue that nature isn't manufactured in a factory. However something created ipso facto has a creator. That's definitional. Troy if you are going to use Mathematics, Philosophy or Logic. You may want to be a bit more rigorous in how you frame your argument.

Yas'm mister boss man

Pioneer I may have been wrong on both counts. In underestimating you and overestimating Mel Cynique and Troy.

Troy can you state the implications of your post.

Pioneer I am from the Bronx and I live in Australia . I could use the American spelling.

Yes Troy that's why I thanked him . Although i don't see that as very different. In terms of the end product. Well we could exist in our galaxy. And share the universe.