|
that collect in the trend detection is diagnostic, what is this, visual inspection of residue
<br /> plots. This is how they collect their data, so, when they go up there, they go up there and
<br /> they look for some residue, on top of the plots they put out. That's what they put in their
<br /> mathematical equations to get these numbers, so, the statistics over here, I cross
<br /> reference it with I know, and I get confused. I didn't have too many days to look at this, I
<br /> probably spent four (4) days, trying just to go back and forth, what math equations they
<br /> used. How they, ummm...right here we give it a plus and minus on the error bars. How
<br /> are you guys getting this error? The over under is too big. I don't accept 700, if you tell
<br /> me between 400 and 500, I'll accept that, if you say 300 and 900, that error gap is too big.
<br /> I don't accept your mathematics, and I don't accept your stats.To go back to the, on page
<br /> 4, on population count, you brought up the fire, 2001, it was the biggest fire we ever
<br /> experienced. If we look at the count from 2020 and 2021 and 2022, there is no decrease
<br /> in the population counts after that big fire.
<br /> So, you're telling me that the biggest fire we ever had covered Mauna Kea all the way to
<br /> Mauna Loa in the critical habitat area had no effect on the population counts, that's what
<br /> they are telling us. The biggest fire we ever experienced. When we went back the
<br /> difference was two (2) 2021 to 2022/ 2022 to 2021 the difference was one (1) count.
<br /> From 2021 to 2022 the difference was five (5) So you are telling me that because of the
<br /> fire we only lost five (5) birds! No way, I don't accept that either. So, these numbers that
<br /> they are putting out, you know they say that they, on page 6 using the...due to sarcastic
<br /> fluctuation (The phrase "due to sarcastic fluctuation"is not a standard idiom orscientific
<br /> term. It is likely a nonsensical or humorous expression created by combining a specific
<br /> Psychological concept with technical sounding, but irrelevant.) population in overall
<br /> trends, they used the intern annual noise, and it was audio correlated with alternative
<br /> trend assessments, using Biege space models. These are five (5) different algorithms and
<br /> mathematical equations. Do one, take that, put them into a different one, take that, put
<br /> it into a different one and it just keeps jumping. If this was a math class, I wouldn't accept
<br /> that. If this was an astronomy paper, I wouldn't accept that. This is just my mana'o
<br /> looking at this from a science background. The reason I dropped out of UH Physics was
<br /> because I had a conversation with one of my professors, and he's the head professor of
<br /> astronomy here and he used to be the director of telescopes. And I had a conversation
<br /> with him, in my last year about error analysis and data collection, where he told me 50%
<br /> of all data we find in our books is just straight up a lie. This is from my professor and that's
<br /> why I gave up my scientific, my PHD because I don't want to spend my life going through
<br /> the lies,just so I can prove my own truth. So, I left, and I came across this, and this is the
<br /> kind of lie that he was telling me about, where we use mathematics to forge numbers,
<br /> because real life doesn't reflect these counts. So, that's just my understanding using my
<br /> degree and error analysis by John Taylor. Just cross-referencing all the algorithms and
<br /> trend detections they talk about. Other than that, this is just my mana'o and what I read,
<br /> just going through this. I got the book right here, if you guys want to read it. Don't read
<br /> it...Life is too short...like uncle said. That's my mana'o and we can go forward from there.
<br /> 22
<br />
|