Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Fake News Alert: Secret Service Not Running Out of Money Because of Trump and Family
Major news outlets around the country would have you think that the United States Secret Service is running out of money due to President Trump’s frequent travel and large family. From the USA Today:
The Secret Service can no longer pay hundreds of agents it needs to carry out an expanded protective mission – in large part due to the sheer size of President Trump’s family and efforts necessary to secure their multiple residences up and down the East Coast.
Secret Service Director Randolph “Tex” Alles, in an interview with USA TODAY, said more than 1,000 agents have already hit the federally mandated caps for salary and overtime allowances that were meant to last the entire year.
Problem is, that’s not true. According to a press release from Director Alles:
This issue is not one that can be attributed to the current Administration’s protection requirements alone, but rather has been an ongoing issue for nearly a decade due to an overall increase in operational tempo.
Better luck next time.
(h/t @max)
Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members.
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community
of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.
There are 79 comments.
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
Oh you’re right. Civil engineer and mechanical engineering. Seems like a perfect fit for the subject matter.
I like to drink An Inconvenient Vermouth because its Gin O’Clock.
Do government workers ever get fired?
Okay fair point. So you comment a lot on politics. Care to show us your political science PhD and your JD?
Like Bill Nye.
But there is a big difference. The task at hand is not one of envisioning and explaining the atmospheric chemistry. The task at hand is pointing out errors and omissions in an explanation. In that case, the domain of people capable of providing relevant input is much expanded.
If I were disagreeing with law or political science journals, I would certainly find such people and consult with them. But that’s not typically something I do.
Engineers have to make things that work.
Turn that around. I think the role of a science communicator can be done perfectly well by someone with a civil engineering background. That’s a different task from trying to debunk a bunch of climate journals.
Right. I have no problem with engineers. I’m pro-engineer. It’s just a different field from climate science.
Its like whenever I hear a meterologist trying to debunk global warming. That’s not his field. While they seem similar, it’s a very different field.
Look, I’m not saying that this guy couldn’t, in theory, do the work. I’m saying that a background on civil engineering doesn’t make a guy a climate scientist.
And look, I’m not saying the guy is necessarily wrong.
But to dismiss a peer reviewed article looking at climate literature as “fake news” because of some blog post written by some guy whose back ground is in civil engineering seems dubious to me.
Except that one can see a math error or a dubious premise, etc., without knowing the underlying atmospheric chemistry.
One can’t authoritatively explain the atmospheric chemistry in layman’s terms without knowing the atmospheric chemistry.
Right. Engineering is science, climate science is politics.
Climate “scientists” debunk their own models
Massive fraud at NASA (97% fake)
Climate fraud exposed
p.s. when was the first collegiate PhD degree in “Climate Science” (sic) actually awarded?
But but 70 of them agree! Er or something. . .
Haha! Just ask the “scientists” at East Anglia University. The science isn’t settled? No problem! Just fudge the data.
I was a kid in 1977, but I remember Time, Newsweek, and US News & World Report all putting out articles (some cover articles) on the coming ice age.
They also put out that the world would run out of oil by 1997, and we’d be back in the dark ages. I remember thinking, “eh, in 1997 I’ll be 31. That’s old. So I guess I’ll be ready to die.”
In this case the civil engineer has the goods on the dishonest peer-reviewed paper. The authors of the paper relied on a count of previously published peer-reviewed papers. Our intrepid engineer followed the “talk” pages at the Wikipedia entries for a number of these papers and discovered that references to other papers that had been referenced in the global-cooling-crisis papers had been deleted, and deleted by the authors of the survey paper, and not counted in their tables.
What the survey peer-reviewed article authors did was to run through Wikipedia deleting references to a lot of 1970s articles that promoted the global cooling crisis. Then they counted the number of papers pro and con. Then they published a survey based on a dishonest count of the number of papers.
The engineer does not have to even be able to follow the climate papers, all he has to do is show that the count was dishonest, which he did with flair and footnotes, references and links.
James Delingpole, writing at Breitbart, exposes the 100% “political” background of the Climate Hoax segment of the Green Blob …
President Trump Disbands the Advisory Committee For Sustained National Climate Assessment
It is an enormous web of Big Government that 0bama spawned in eight years. #ChangeItBack