Slashdot Mirror

And not just the data that was cherry-picked to support the hypothesis?

Well that's kind of a good point, whether or not the OP was sarcastic. Every research project generates reams of data that gets flushed for various reasons. Often the original impulse for the research was a vague wiggle in the data from another, uncontrolled experiment. Where do you draw the line? For an example, I point to all the otherwise apparently rational people who point to every single reported atmospheric CO2 concentration from the earliest days of CO2 measurement as evidence that the current CO2 level is not historically very high; apparently they'd rather believe that the level fluctuated by a factor of 10X on a daily basis back then (but oddly, doesn't fluctuate any more) than that some of the earliest measurements were in error. E. g. http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/Engr... page 19.

Petition by American who have earned degrees in science fields including a few PhDs with an actual statement that the science is not solid with a short review of pertinent data - http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

That is not even a remotely interesting. it ends in a conspiracy theory statement about some sort of shady UN conspiracy for "global taxation", cites an article from the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" , a crank organization ran out of a back shed, that once actually featured a couple of members who did biomedicine, but since its found its notoriety in creationism and far right conspiracy theorizing. The site also claims the paper is peer reviewed. It isn't. And it wouldn't pass peer review either, it makes elementary errors that a high school student wouldnt make, let alone a real science-by-post-doctorates type paper.

Finally, almost all of the "scientists" (and ALL of the PhDs) that signed it are not even remotely qualified to give an expert answer in it.

If the site is can't even get fundamental stuff like that in order, why on earth quote it on slashdot.

Which brings me to this....

An Aeronautical Engineer's look at global warming (and yes he has earned his chops in that arena) - http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdf

Why would an "Aeronautical engineer" have an opinion anymore itneresting than, say, a computer programmer, or a dentist? Being "A scientist" doesnt mean jack shit if the qualification isn't relevant.

While this would be my first comment and I am not technically a denier... consider the following:

Petition by American who have earned degrees in science fields including a few PhDs with an actual statement that the science is not solid with a short review of pertinent data - http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

An Aeronautical Engineer's look at global warming (and yes he has earned his chops in that arena) - http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdf

Burt Rutan replied to a heckler with the following. I won't give a link to the heckler's blog, he doesn't deserve the traffic.

burt rutan, January 28, 2012 at 6:48 pm :
Brian,
In my background of 46 years in aerospace flight testing and design I have seen many examples of data presentation fraud. That is what prompted my interest in seeing how the scientists have processed the climate data, presented it and promoted their theories to policy makers and the media.

What I found shocked me and prompted me to do further research. I researched data presentation fraud in climate science from 1999 to 2010.

I do not have time here to define the details; if interested in my research, a PPT or PDF can be downloaded at:
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm

In general, if you as an engineer with normal ethics, study the subject you will conclude that the theory that man’s addition of CO2 to the atmosphere (a trace amount to an already trace gas content) cannot cause the observed warming unless you assume a large positive feedback from water vapor. You will also find that the real feedback is negative, not positive!

Specifically, the theory of CAGW is not supported by any of the climate data and none of the predictions of IPCC since their first report in 1991 have been supported by measured data. The scare is merely a computer modeled theory that has been flawed from the beginning, and in spite of its failure to predict, many of the climate scientists cling to it. They applauded the correlation of surface temperatures with CO2 content from 1960 to 1998 as proof, but fail to admit that the planet has cooled after 1998 in spite of the CO2 content increasing.

The failure of the IPCC machine is especially evident in the use of “models” to justify claims, so it might be worthwhile to just look at modeling and science.
Modeling is more correctly a branch of Engineering and there are some basic rules that have been flouted by CAGW _ CO2 modelers.
Firstly there has to be a problem analysis which identifies relevant factors and the physical, chemical and thermodynamic behaviors of those factors within the system.
Any claim that this has been done in the CO2 warming problem is PREPOSTEROUS.
There are perhaps a thousand PhD topics there waiting to be taken up by researchers.
We could start with work on understanding heat transfer between the main interfaces; eg Core to surface / surface to ocean depths/ ocean depths to ocean surface / ocean surface to atmosphere and so on, not having yet reached the depth of space at just slightly above absolute zero.
To claim that the entire system of atmospheric temperature moderation has been described by
the fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 content while excluding the other obvious factors such as atmospheric water vapour content, solar flux and orbital mechanics is just nonsense.
The whole point of modelling when done correctly is that it links accurately measured input of the main factors and accurately measure target output. Where you have major input factors that are not considered and poor and uncertain measurement of all factors then all you have is a joke or more seriously Public Fraud based on science.
You do not have science.

CO2 is not a pollutant. When the Dinosaurs roamed, the CO2 content was 6 to 9 times current and the planet was green from pole to pole; almost no deserts. If we doubled the atmospheric content of CO2, young pine trees would grow at twice the rate and nearly every crop yield would go up 30 to 40%. We, the animals and all land plant life would be healthier if CO2 content were to increase.

Do the study yourself. Look at how and why the data are manipulated, cherry-picked and promoted. I will bet if you did, you too would be shocked.

The mark of a good theory is its ability to be falsified by new data. The mark of a good scientist is the ability to accept that.

Burt

The Diffe

One of the signatories to that piece is aerospace engineer Burt Rutan, whose company designed Spaceship One and other advanced plane designs. He's been arguing, for years, that global warming is an engineering problem, which benefits from being treated as such. This way of thinking affects how you diagnose the problem, and (more relevant) what you do about it. In engineering safety terms, the ideal way to deal with a problem is to prevent it. (Hardly controversial.) However, that does not mean that problems must be avoided at all costs; that is simply unreasonable. There needs to be some kind of cost-benefit analysis. If you can't reasonably avoid all problems, you work to mitigate their effects. What are the possible effects of "global warming"? Nature will be (mostly) fine, it's mainly about the impact on people, and there is much we can do to minimise the impact.

Where I am in agreement with Rutan is that there's too much alarmism about the impact that global warming might have if true. The oft-quoted 1m rise in mean sea level, for example: exactly why would that be the end of the world? Especially if that rise happens over centuries? Are the Maldives worth saving, for example? If you look at a city like London, for example, there are buildings along the Thames Embankment, some of which might be at some risk of flooding after a 1m rise in sea level. It's not correct to say that "London is under threat". Buildings do not last forever, nor are they expected to. I lived in London for years, and am struggling to think of a building of national historic value that would be at risk. One exception might be the Palace of Westminster (Houses of Parliament), but that is already sinking under its own weight.

Likewise, I don't have a problem with the idea that we could see more and stronger tropical storms - I read John Barnes' Mother of Storms when it first came out 18 years ago. (I'm not a "believer" in this stuff - "belief" is just not necessary. If that's true, and it can't be avoided ... what are we going to do to manage the situation. Why is it that cities in the Far East are regularly hit by typhoons, but it's not a disaster every time? There are lessons to be learned from how their infrastructure and building construction methods are better able to deal with the same levels of wind and rain that cause billions of dollars of damage in the USA.

While I don't agree with everything Rutan says, I'm with him on the need for people to stop panicking, and to start thinking about the practical implications of what could happen. For example: don't build houses on flood plains, or on slopes at risk of landslides if there's a lot of rain on them. Leave hillsides alone, let the natural vegetation hold the soil in place ... and recognise that landslides are going to happen anyway. It's a fool's errand to think you can prevent them at all costs, and it's a better idea to just stay out of their way. The same logic applies to other "human impacts": using intelligence can keep people out of harm's way.

For the record I disliked Al Gore (and his annoying wife) before he picked Global Warming as his crusade, But there are plenty of scientist and engineers that have shown the liberties taken with the statistics - Some of the data might have merit but that has been tarnished for the sake of sensationalism and votes - I don't find the skepticism of global warming to be intellectually lazy or dishonest, One of the best reasoned papers on this was penned by Burt Rutan, If you are only a casual follower of AGW I challenge you to read this and see things from one of the disbelievers points of view http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.pdf

Yes, me too: sick of people who won't listen to science, and instead listen to the media and the so-called scientists who support the consensus so that they can get their grant money.

For an overview of the overwhelming evidence against the so-called consensus, see this presentation by Burt Rutan. Pay particular attention to the part where he talks about the deliberate falsification of data by the "scientists" who support the global warming consensus.

Of course, a trial only makes sense if the objectivity of the judge could somehow be assured.

This is not a troll. If you haven't even looked into the science, or even read that presentation, then maybe you should...

and of course wiki : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Starship/