If you are educated as an engineer and passed all exams, you're an engineer, no matter what a state board says.
But they can regulate the conditions under which you are allowed to practice your trade as an engineer.
Regarding this particular case it's all legal skullduggery in order to shut him up instead of taking his complaint serious.
To me this tells it all. Are you going to help them with that?
The 'practising' assumes payment. He wasn't paid, he gave his professional opinion without asking for payment or offering his services as an engineer.
This is a letter from a citizen, who is also en engineer, at least by education, and is not carrying out that trade.
WTF are they doing.
A model is a simulation of an existing system in existing situations.
During the development of a model, a lot of time is put into tweaking and adjusting all kinds of parameters in order to get realistic results.
How do we know they are realistic? Because we can track the past, feed it into the model, and check the outcome with what we know happened.
Now how are we going to be sure that those models will also be able to predict the future, while their parameters have been adjusted in order to 'predict' the past?
If the expected outcomes lay outside the parts of the parameter space that have occurred in the past, then it can't accurately predict the future.
It's quite basic, and I don't know why people don't see it.
("Because it's wrong", you will say, and there we'll go again...)
Soon, the AI industry will be the only industry where people still can get a job.
As soon as that passes, however, we will all be gone.
What an intelligent way to eliminate ones own species...
The effects of... and global warming are things you can look into yourself.
This remark moved the goal post from anthropogenic GW to GW in general. Of course we can measure GW. Attributing it to anthropogenic causes is a bit more difficult. Simulation models are no rigid proof and they also don't convince me.
So, to me attributing GW to 'A' is a bit of a leap of faith, rather than hard evidence, especially in light of all the uncertainties around our understanding of what exactly is going on.
So, I don't agree with 'the conclusions'.
There is no religious war for vaccination.
Before large scale vaccination (in the Western world) started, the morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases were already going downhill very rapidly due to improved hygienic conditions, nutrition and general welfare. Attributing the further decline solely to the vaccination campaigns seems a bit spurious to me.
Since the USA ramped up the vaccinations childhood death is one of the highest among the developed countries. Now I know this isn't proof of vaccine damage, but it surely could make one think about it.
And insisting that the Disney World Measles 'Epidemic' was caused by unvaccinated persons is also a bit funny if a large number of people who contracted the measles were fully vaccinated. So there's still a lot of room for discussion, now that you mentioned it...
Now if you want to talk about vaccines in underdeveloped countries, then I could agree with you that there is room for disease control using vaccines. But history shows that it might also be a good (or maybe better?) idea to just improve the living conditions of the people in those countries and see a steep decline in epidemics.
Yes, but not for the reason you suggested.
Climate models, all models for that matter, can not 'predict' anything that lays outside the part of the parameter space for which they have been tested and calibrated.
That is fundamental. They haven't been tested in that region in which we aren't living yet and nobody knows what they are going to 'predict' and whether it will be correct or not.
One can simulate electronic circuits, yes, but the climate, and then such that it accurately will predict 'the first occurrence of AGW and its amount. We've never been there, so how will we even ever know whether they are correct or not?
Look here, another recently found 'unexpected' (wtf is that, an excuse of sorts?) flaw in the climate models. Makes one wonder what else might be wrong with those.
But the arrogant 'community' of climate alarmists can not be wrong, earth is heating up, and not from the sun but from our doing, and we can still stop it if we act now by donating money to Al Gore's carbon certificates trading fund... And all that based on nothing.
You should be modded up, you know?
So, RRRight! Since the early 2000's they know they don't understand climate.
Then end 2010's we get to hear about how the models 'had it all wrong'.
See? They can't even account for what happened last year, but still they predict alarming sea level changes with their inherently faulty and inaccurate models, and tell us to all buy expensive carbon certificates, with the which Al Gore then can trade on the exchanges, gaining tons of money in the process.
And to show how few real arguments they have, they shout profanities, as here below...
Me too. You're taking me wrong. Or I didn't explain myself properly. Also a possibility.
I didn't say that all of science is phony.
What I meant to say is that apparently we can not put blind trust in the papers 'because they are peer reviewed'.
What I also meant to say is, that people who postulate that peer reviewed published science can be generally trusted are wrong, because look: here is one example that falsifies their theory.
Thanks for making me clear that my explanation was lacking clarity.
No they don't. Because they get reported for hate speech or trolling by the not-so-level-headed people here who wage a religious war for AGW acceptance (and other things--vaccines come to mind...).
So the level headed people lose their mod points, and, because of the level-headed people that they are, they do not retribute that with flagging the AGW-warriors (and there's others too) for hate speech or trolling.
So the bad guys get the mod points, and the good guys loose them.
Welcome to/.
No, you're wrong.
The authority of science is based on the trust that is vested in the peer review.
The hypothesis that peer reviewed science is true science, is falsified if even only 1 example can be found in which the theory isn't true.
Slashdot Mirror
Or 'civil forfeiture' his car while he's there.
Maybe they could compel the state to finally do some maintenance on the road network?
Read the requirements above. It says that he can't practice engineering without license, that's all.
If you are educated as an engineer and passed all exams, you're an engineer, no matter what a state board says.
But they can regulate the conditions under which you are allowed to practice your trade as an engineer.
Regarding this particular case it's all legal skullduggery in order to shut him up instead of taking his complaint serious.
To me this tells it all. Are you going to help them with that?
The 'practising' assumes payment. He wasn't paid, he gave his professional opinion without asking for payment or offering his services as an engineer.
This is a letter from a citizen, who is also en engineer, at least by education, and is not carrying out that trade.
WTF are they doing.
I find that a bit strange if your degree says you're an engineer.
I would write: "I hold a degree in engineering."
And I really would, because I do.
Apparently, as I read it, Oregon state law doesn't agree with you.
Not a job, you'll be a volunteer, a partizan, a freedom fighter, a guerilla. But of course you'll always be called a terrorist.
A model is a simulation of an existing system in existing situations.
During the development of a model, a lot of time is put into tweaking and adjusting all kinds of parameters in order to get realistic results.
How do we know they are realistic? Because we can track the past, feed it into the model, and check the outcome with what we know happened.
Now how are we going to be sure that those models will also be able to predict the future, while their parameters have been adjusted in order to 'predict' the past?
If the expected outcomes lay outside the parts of the parameter space that have occurred in the past, then it can't accurately predict the future.
It's quite basic, and I don't know why people don't see it.
("Because it's wrong", you will say, and there we'll go again...)
heretic! ;)
Soon, the AI industry will be the only industry where people still can get a job.
As soon as that passes, however, we will all be gone.
What an intelligent way to eliminate ones own species...
Or they mod you down for 'flamebait'... Well, if slashdot allows this I don't give a crap anymore about there 'karma' points.
The US is not the world...
Please show me where I involved the US, or mentioned any conspiracy (although those things do exist...).
debunking AGW
Yes, there are some papers that try to 'debunk' AGW, and they themselves don't seem to be debunked themselves much.
The effects of ... and global warming are things you can look into yourself.
This remark moved the goal post from anthropogenic GW to GW in general. Of course we can measure GW. Attributing it to anthropogenic causes is a bit more difficult. Simulation models are no rigid proof and they also don't convince me.
So, to me attributing GW to 'A' is a bit of a leap of faith, rather than hard evidence, especially in light of all the uncertainties around our understanding of what exactly is going on.
So, I don't agree with 'the conclusions'.
There is no religious war for vaccination.
Before large scale vaccination (in the Western world) started, the morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases were already going downhill very rapidly due to improved hygienic conditions, nutrition and general welfare. Attributing the further decline solely to the vaccination campaigns seems a bit spurious to me.
Since the USA ramped up the vaccinations childhood death is one of the highest among the developed countries. Now I know this isn't proof of vaccine damage, but it surely could make one think about it.
And insisting that the Disney World Measles 'Epidemic' was caused by unvaccinated persons is also a bit funny if a large number of people who contracted the measles were fully vaccinated. So there's still a lot of room for discussion, now that you mentioned it...
Now if you want to talk about vaccines in underdeveloped countries, then I could agree with you that there is room for disease control using vaccines. But history shows that it might also be a good (or maybe better?) idea to just improve the living conditions of the people in those countries and see a steep decline in epidemics.
...climate models are wrong in their entirety...
Yes, but not for the reason you suggested. Climate models, all models for that matter, can not 'predict' anything that lays outside the part of the parameter space for which they have been tested and calibrated.
That is fundamental. They haven't been tested in that region in which we aren't living yet and nobody knows what they are going to 'predict' and whether it will be correct or not.
One can simulate electronic circuits, yes, but the climate, and then such that it accurately will predict 'the first occurrence of AGW and its amount. We've never been there, so how will we even ever know whether they are correct or not?
No no, you got it all wrong, this was the last flaw!
Look here, another recently found 'unexpected' (wtf is that, an excuse of sorts?) flaw in the climate models. Makes one wonder what else might be wrong with those.
But the arrogant 'community' of climate alarmists can not be wrong, earth is heating up, and not from the sun but from our doing, and we can still stop it if we act now by donating money to Al Gore's carbon certificates trading fund... And all that based on nothing.
You should be modded up, you know?
So, RRRight! Since the early 2000's they know they don't understand climate.
Then end 2010's we get to hear about how the models 'had it all wrong'.
See? They can't even account for what happened last year, but still they predict alarming sea level changes with their inherently faulty and inaccurate models, and tell us to all buy expensive carbon certificates, with the which Al Gore then can trade on the exchanges, gaining tons of money in the process.
And to show how few real arguments they have, they shout profanities, as here below...
Ok, sorry about that hyperbole. It would be difficult to get that research funded and the papers approved through peer review and journal editors.
Me too. You're taking me wrong. Or I didn't explain myself properly. Also a possibility.
I didn't say that all of science is phony.
What I meant to say is that apparently we can not put blind trust in the papers 'because they are peer reviewed'.
What I also meant to say is, that people who postulate that peer reviewed published science can be generally trusted are wrong, because look: here is one example that falsifies their theory.
Thanks for making me clear that my explanation was lacking clarity.
I hope more level headed minds will upmod you.
No they don't. Because they get reported for hate speech or trolling by the not-so-level-headed people here who wage a religious war for AGW acceptance (and other things--vaccines come to mind...). /.
:)
So the level headed people lose their mod points, and, because of the level-headed people that they are, they do not retribute that with flagging the AGW-warriors (and there's others too) for hate speech or trolling.
So the bad guys get the mod points, and the good guys loose them.
Welcome to
(watch this post getting modded down
Something tells me you're not completely without bias.
No, you're wrong.
The authority of science is based on the trust that is vested in the peer review.
The hypothesis that peer reviewed science is true science, is falsified if even only 1 example can be found in which the theory isn't true.
...58 papers were retracted from seven different journals...
But 58 is. And then there is this, and this.