Burt Rutan's take on AGW
TUKA
Full document at:
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
Burt Rutan
Mojave, December 2009
Introduction
Why I studied AGW
My lifetime work from childhood to the present has been focused on
aircraft/spacecraft design and development, with flight-testing being my
career specialty. Thus, I have always been challenged to determine the
accuracy and meaning of a large amount of disparate data and have often
been required to apply those interpretations to development of a product
that absolutely must be safe and robust.
My main interest in energy efficiency started in the 1970's, when my
desert backyard view became cluttered with thousands of large
commercial wind generators, whose development was driven by the tax
incentives from the oil shortage and peak-oil scare of that era. I
equipped my small business with my own design, passive solar water heat
system. I designed and built my custom bermed-Pyramid home, which was
featured on the cover of the November 1989 issue of Popular Science
magazine, labeled 'The Ultimate Energy-Efficient House'. I drove the
all-electric EV-1 car as my primary automobile for seven years until GM
canceled the lease and took it back.
I then lost interest in energy-efficient technologies until four years ago
when I noticed something troubling about the challenges facing the global
warming alarmists. I started my research on anthropogenic (i.e. mancaused)
global warming (AGW) because, I found to my surprise, that to
claim a catastrophic AGW theory as a 'proof', the climate scientists
thought they only needed to show that human emissions MIGHT cause a
fractional-degree global decadal temperature rise, for an earth that
generally varies 20 to 40 deg F every 24 hours and varies as much as 80
to 100 deg F every year -- This seemed to be a Herculean task indeed.
Also, the scientists have to do their crisis forecasting by accessing a
myriad of disparate temperature data from often degraded sensors or
temperature proxies for a chaotic global system. That system has had
clear decadal sunspot variation, likely 500 to 2,000-year temperature
cycles, routine 85k-year ice-age periods, etc - all caused by non-human
effects. Even if global temperatures were the result of a single cause, the
task of predicting future warming by the study of measured, conflicting
surface/atmospheric/ocean data, would be difficult. With many chaotic
causes (solar input intensity, precipitation, cloud formation, greenhouse
gas warming, atmosphere-to-sea interactions, volcanoes, ocean currents,
etc.), the task seemed overwhelming. In short, I observed that having
adequate confidence in the data to make accurate, long-term global
temperature predictions would likely be impossible.
Another thing troubled me - those scientists that claimed that warming is
human-caused and catastrophic, tended to be the ones who sought out
the media to proclaim their views (an unusual behavior for scientists
immersed in the proper scientific procedure). The larger group of
scientists that did not agree tended to be mute. This, of course gave the
media and some politicians an impression that there was scientific
'consensus', even though it did not exist. Of course, consensus has no
place in a scientific search for the truth of a new theory (Galileo would
likely agree). The most troubling thing about the situation was the history
of what happens to the truth when researchers can advance their
occupation and financial future by becoming vocal alarmists. The
occasional data adjustments being made by the scientists are
questionable at best and ludicrous or fraudulent at worst.
What is really going on with 'Climate Change'?
Nearly all available measured climate temperature data or proxies,
regardless of how old or new, show rapid changes, extreme scatter or
both, when the data are not cherry-picked. Likely the best data (moststable,
least scatter) would be measured ocean temperature, due to its
enormous thermal inertia. However, the alarmists do not use this because
those data do not support any catastrophic AGW theory. Also, the oceans
take 30 to 100 years to react to atmospheric temperature changes and the
alarmists seem to want action -- right now.
Is it sensor/proxy inaccuracies (instrument error/scatter, inadequate
coverage), or does the planet really react quickly to whatever causes the
observed temperature swings? Regardless of which it is, any engineer
who needs to make his important design or program
conclusions/recommendations, based on analysis of available climate
data, would conclude that it is not possible (or not ethical) to predict future
fractional-degree decadal (or century) global temperature changes from
this mess of scatter and conflicts.
Also, an engineer knows it is wrong to arbitrarily select a single theory (for
example, human emissions of greenhouse gas (GHG) effects) as a 'proof
cause' of warming. This is especially true when that single-proposed
cause is a small effect among the many other possible causes. Pointing
to sharp increases of measured temperature and then claiming global
warming is due to the miniscule human additions to the planet's
atmospheric GHG, while ignoring the fact that cooling periods are also
observed while emissions increase, does not pass a sanity check.
I found that no conclusion on human GHG-blame could be made if one
honestly considers the other causes. This is supported by the observation
that the climate likely has always had at least today's temperature swings,
in the absence of any significant human activity. Also, the GHG warming
effect is primarily driven by water vapor, not by CO2, and the human
emissions' portion of atmospheric CO2 is tiny.
The Vostok ice core data (see chart below) show that our recent history
(the last 12,000 years) has been the most stable warm period in the last
400,000 years. Those data also show that the planet's current and recent
temperatures are cooler than those seen during any of the other
measured warm periods. Since we know from the fossil record that all the
planet's plants and animals thrive best in the brief warm periods, an
honest scientist should be reporting this observation as 'very good news' -
all living things (including us humans) are experiencing the best of all
times; rather than scaring us with predictions of imminent doom. The
misinformed reports that we are now 'experiencing unprecedented hot
conditions and ice melting' are clearly wrong. The last 100 years warming
is merely just another of those small scatter hashes at the far right of the
Vostok chart -- another very-desirable oscillation indeed.
Vostok Ice Core Temperature Proxy
The climate scientist's problem of proving his human-caused GHG crisis
theory seemed, to my engineering mind, impossible. This is what
attracted me to study the raw data and to see if there was fraud in its
summary presentations, since the slightest changes in the data, such as a
bit of cherry picking tree rings or even an 'innocent' selection of a
truncated temperature data set, is all that would be needed to alarm the
naive non-scientific audience. It is important to note that those who write
UN summary reports and those who make energy policy decisions do not
look at the raw data; they only see the summary presentations. My
conclusion is that, if the analysis (yes, the analysis by climate scientists)
had been required to pass a typical engineering preliminary design review,
the crisis theory would have never been passed on to the non-technical
audience.
In the presentation that follows this introduction, you will see charts you
are familiar with; those from movies/newspapers/magazines/TV that have
allowed alarmists to thrive with their predictions of climate calamity. You
will also see what is revealed when the charts are subjected to a typical
engineering review, where the questions asked are these:
1. Are all the available data considered and presented?
2. Is the data presented in a way that is not biased to a pre-conceived
conclusion?
3. Is it possible to make confident predictions with large data scatter and
data conflict?
4. Have all possible causes/effects been considered, before claiming a
proof (example - attributing observed global warming to human GHG
emissions)?
5. Have other views and other scientific theories been considered?
What I found is that the entire process of scientific study of the earth's
climate data, combined with the computer models developed to predict
future climate, is extremely susceptible to abuse. What I mean by that is
even minor data 'adjustments' or data cherry picking, can completely
change the conclusions. If, for example, the observed data were to show
clear, high-confidence trends, and the sensor systems were of high
accuracy (un-affected by effects like urban heating, etc) and if the
predictive computer models were shown to work, some preliminary
conclusion could be drawn. However, even that scenario would
continuously call out for more data, more analysis for increasing the
confidence in the theory before a proof were claimed (i.e. use of the
proper scientific method).
Further, I found that none of the climate models had predicted the
1999- to-2009 cooling until they were 'adjusted', after the fact. I
see 'adjustments-after-test' all the time in aircraft development. The
stressanalysis specialist can always accurately predict a wing failure
after he adjusts his model, following a shop test of ultimate wing
strength. Note, that wing design is relatively straight forward compared
to the chaotic behavior of climate.
My most alarming finding was that many of the top climate scientists do
not respect or use a proper scientific process. This finding was not just for
the global warming issue, it was prevalent and pervasive back during the
ozone hole scare, where the primary blame was attributed to human CFC
release and the panic was alarmist-driven, not data driven. Based on
available climate data, no respectable engineering study would accept the
theory of human-caused GHG increase as proof to justify any new
development or any large expenditure of funds to 'fix the warming
problem'.
What is being shown by the Big Guys?
One has only to look at the two most notable charts (shown below;
estimated average global temperatures for the last thousand years) from
two United Nations IPCC summary reports, published a decade apart, to
realize that something might be seriously wrong. The fact that the 2001
'hockey stick' chart was presented in color in several sections of the 2001
IPCC report, without explaining how the scientists managed to completely
eliminate their earlier depiction of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little
Ice Age (both are well covered in historical documents as well as scientific
analysis - http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php) is
unacceptable behavior.
Noting that the 'hockey stick' chart was removed in later editions of the
IPCC 'scientific' reports supports the conclusion that something is indeed
wrong. It was removed because an outside investigation was conducted
that resembled a proper engineering review as described above - with a
finding of fraud. Specifically, the fraud was identified by showing that the
critical data for the chart came from cherry picking just a handful of
Siberian trees (tree ring proxy to estimate temperature), without evidence
that the researcher applied the proper scientific method. Using all the
data or any random selection of 10% of the tree ring data showed no
significant correlation of planet warming to human CO2 emissions.
The fraud was not limited to the tree cherry picking. The computer code
for presentation had been tweaked such that a hockey stick shape is
produced even if the data set is developed with a random number
generator! Using tree rings to estimate global temperature trends has
been shown to be a poor proxy method. However, it is useful to some
climate 'scientists' because careful selection of a small number of trees
can produce any desired result.
The horrific result of this scandal was that the 2001 UN hockey stick chart
formed the very foundation of a non-scientific theory that resulted in the
awarding of a Nobel Peace Prize, a movie Oscar and a best-selling book.
Is our modest warming bad?
As you will later see from this report's chapters, the current ice-agerecovery
warming slope is modest. This warming is beneficial to the
planet, its plants and its animals (including humans). This is true even if a
doubling of the atmospheric CO2 is added to assist the warmth. The chart
below shows the effects of that additional CO2 on agricultural crop
production and the growth rate of young pine trees. This large increase of
only the CO2 component of GHG has very little effect on global
temperatures, since the thermostatic effects of precipitation and cloud
formation overwhelm the small GHG warming.
Benefits of doubling atmospheric CO2
Warming alarmists continue to point to likely devastation in the next
century by warming-caused increases in human deaths, floods, lightning,
hurricanes, tornadoes, cyclones, drought, sea-ice extent, and land-borne
ice fields. If they took the time to study the real data, they would find no
cause for alarm in any of these items. This will be later shown in this
report and was summarized in my July 2009 Oshkosh talk (referenced
below).
What is a logical prediction?
In spite of a detailed look at reams of data and reading the rhetoric from
both sides of the 'catastrophic AGW' debate, this engineer sees nothing
compelling enough to indicate strong support for any of the various global
warming predictions on either side of the debate.
However, I found one prediction that, to me makes the most common
sense. The graph below (by Dr Syun Akasofu, IARC Founding Director
and Professor of Physics, Emeritus UAF) shows a 320-year time period.
The long, straight dashed line shows the accepted long-term trend - a
modest 0.6 deg C per 100-year warming, i.e. the continuing recovery from
the Little Ice Age, extrapolated for the next century.
The Observational Data box shows the measured, previous 120-year
history of global temperature anomaly, ending in the year 2002. The
wiggly red line within this box illustrates the most reliable data; the last 25
years that include satellite atmospheric measurements. Note how the
recent decade of cooling (green arrow pointing to the 2009 temperature
point) fits in fine with the observed mild temperature oscillations over the
last 100 years. This all supports a logical prediction that the next 100
years should mimic the last 100 years; supporting a beneficial warming
trend and a sea level increase by 2100 of only 6 to 8 inches.
Of course, the thing that stands out on the Akasofu chart is the overlaid
IPCC prediction for the next 100 years. This politically driven "forecast" is
not supported by any careful analysis of past or present climate data,
including predicted human CO2 emissions. It has been rejected by the
vast majority of the scientific community. I found no justification to be
afraid of the IPCC 'doomsday' predictions of warming. I will bet that, like
earlier scares, these predictions will quietly disappear over the next few
years. IPCC has already made large downward corrections to their
previous sea-level forecasts.
Other information
The recent findings of science fraud (memos and computer codes
regarding lost, hidden or intentionally-fudged data - and the censoring of
critics) at CRU, NZ NIWA and NASA GISS, as well as findings of science
fraud dating back to the ozone hole scare, has not only raised my belief
that something is very wrong with the media-driven 'catastrophic AGW
theory', but has ignited my resolve to do further research. Thus, this report
is not a static reference; it will be updated as more information becomes
available.
While this is my first publication on AGW data presentation fraud, some of
my conclusions were originally presented on July 19th 2009 at the
Pasadena Art Center College of Design (when I accepted their lifetime
achievement award).
I presented a lecture on Predictions and AGW Data Fraud at the Oshkosh
Wisconsin Air Venture event (the world's largest convention) on July 31st
2009. A search on YouTube for "rutan global warming" or a Google
'Videos' search for 'rutan global warming' will bring up 9 videos of my 80-
minute Oshkosh presentation. The slides are posted at http://rps3.com/.
This Introduction and the complete report (when available) are posted for
downloading at http://rps3.com/.
--
An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
Ouroboros Rex
not exist.
Peter Franks
Exist or not, science is not about consensus.
Peter Franks
Interesting, thanks for posting.
George Crawley
> TUKA wrote:
> > the media to proclaim their views (an unusual behavior for scientists
> > immersed in the proper scientific procedure). The larger group of
> > scientists that did not agree tended to
>
> not exist.
Burt Rutan? I thought that everyone on the denier side was waiting
for Pee Wee Herman and Charlie Daniels to weigh in on the topic?
What does John Ratzenberger or Jon Voight think? How about Paris
Hilton?
RayLopez99
>
> An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
> practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
Seems like Rutan is an amateur in AGW.
But he's right--further research is needed, until the effects of AGW
are better known. Right now the lower bound of the IPCC says the
effects will be trivial.
RL
tunderbar
Paris Hilton already weighed in on the agw side along with Leonardo
Dicaprio and Al Gore.
Bill Ward
Which of them have won the X-prize?
Burt Rutan may well be the best aeronautical engineer since Kelly Johnson.
Successful engineers must understand the difference between the real
world and fantasy.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
so then one would assume you support increased funding for climate
studies.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> This Introduction and the complete report (when available) are posted for
>
> --
> An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
> practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
well, his views on this subject are pretty much along the lines of the
other bs we have seen posted here in this group. Maybe he should do a
little research into the effects/mitigation costs of invasive species,
associated with a warmer climate.
Andy
> Ouroboros Rex wrote:
> > not exist.
>
> Exist or not, science is not about consensus.
Non scientist deniers say it is, and they're the ones who have been
appointed by themselves to be in charge of moving the goal posts.
It's all about manufactured debate. Nobody in climatology is
debating it. Just morons like Chris Monckton and paid liars without
credentials like Tim Ball. And don't forget how being the (fired)
founder of the weather network makes someone credible to them.
Haven't you heard? It's not about Hurricane intensity any more, they
say it's about frequency.
And it's not about climate any more. It's cold, so now it's about
weather.
You pinheads haven't opened a science text since they dropped out of
public school. You rely on repeating lies and junk science. That's
why you're largely ignored by anyone who matters.
Peter Franks
No.
Not until the hyperbole is reduced/eliminated from the system.
I won't pledge 1 red cent to the studies if we have this level of
discord. Right/wrong, blame who you wish, but it has to go.
Peter Franks
Where there is definitely a group that proclaims that there is NO
warming, there are those that are more pragmatic and understand that
there IS warming that may or may not be part of a natural cycle.
The discussion should not be about a warmer climate -- it should be
about man's impact on the climate (subset of environment) and the
/proper/ course(s) of action.
Invasive species because of a naturally warming climate are NOT our
problem to manage.
erschro...@gmail.com
BS in aeronautical engineering. Yeah, compared to most of the
denialists' "experts" this guy's an Einstein.
Let's look at the scientific setting where he presented his views:
On July 29, 2009, Burt Rutan drew a full house for his presentation at
the Experimental Aircraft Association's EAA Airventure 2009 Oshkosh
Conference entitled "Non-Aerospace Research Quests of a Designer/
Flight Test Engineer" where he discussed his thoughts on his hobby of
climate change.
Oh, and of course, no kook would be complete without something like:
Burt Rutan also states he was raised Republican but now seems to think
that both official parties have grown too big and socialist
tunderbar
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gotta love how you just blindly slander people and their character
based on them exercising their god-given right to an opinion.
Peter Franks
> Oh, and of course, no kook would be complete without something like:
>
> Burt Rutan also states he was raised Republican but now seems to think
> that both official parties have grown too big and socialist
Do you deny/disagree with that statement?
Derek Jones
Rutan's right. Republicans and their supporters are Marxists, socalist
bloodsuckers who hate America. They're nothing but bloated pigs on the take
and have been since Reagan became President.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> - Show quoted text -
you dont control the budget, so your statement is hyperbole.
Edward A. Falk
George Crawley <adrast...@live.com> wrote:
>
>Burt Rutan? ...
Rutan is a brilliant and innovative man. But last I heard, not a
climatologist.
He has his blind spots. I heard him talk once, shortly after the
successful flights of Spaceship One. He referred to NASA as "Nay-Say"
and pointed out that he'd achieved sub-orbital flight for a tiny, tiny
faction of what it cost NASA to do the same thing.
And I'm thinking "dude, every scrap of technology in your spaceship,
with the exception of the tires and the tailskid came from NASA in the
first place." I suspect that if he'd started from the same technological
level that NASA started from, he'd have spent billions doing it too.
So, he might be the world's foremost expert on building spaceships on
the cheap, but that doesn't make him an expert on everything under
the sun.
--
-Ed Falk, fa...@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
I M @ good guy
wrote:
Didn't you know he would strike like a
side-winder when he reads anything negative
about socialism.
Hey, the part of socialism where the public
gets money is great, the part where the public
has to pay is not so great, guess which he likes.
TUKA
All ad-hominem, no content. Par for the course for AGW supporters.
--
There comes a time when you should stop expecting other people to make
a big deal about your birthday. That time is age 12. -- Dave Barry
Catoni
>"Rutan is a brilliant and innovative man. But last I heard, not a
>climatologist."
Reply:
Is James Hansen a climatologist ? (Astronomer)
Is David Suzuki a climatologist ? (Zoologist who has also studied
genetics)
Is Al Gore a climatologist ? (Politician)
No to all of them, and others... but Alarmists what us to listen to
them.
So why not listen to what Rutan has to say ? Or is there a double
standard ?
Bill Ward
> In article
> <4e87cf47-c926-4fee...@r12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
> George Crawley <adrast...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>Burt Rutan? ...
>
> Rutan is a brilliant and innovative man. But last I heard, not a
> climatologist.
>
> He has his blind spots. I heard him talk once, shortly after the
> successful flights of Spaceship One. He referred to NASA as "Nay-Say"
> and pointed out that he'd achieved sub-orbital flight for a tiny, tiny
> faction of what it cost NASA to do the same thing.
>
> And I'm thinking "dude, every scrap of technology in your spaceship,
> with the exception of the tires and the tailskid came from NASA in the
> first place." I suspect that if he'd started from the same
> technological level that NASA started from, he'd have spent billions
> doing it too.
Are you aware of the controlled-stall method of re-entry he uses? I
don't think that came from NASA.
> So, he might be the world's foremost expert on building spaceships on
> the cheap, but that doesn't make him an expert on everything under the
> sun.
It makes him smart enough to question everything until he understands
it. AGW didn't pass that test.
Feynman wasn't a renowned expert on O-rings either, but he was right and
NASA was wrong on the cause of the Challenger explosion.
Buckminster Fuller was fond of saying, "Nature doesn't have department
heads." He was right.
Peter Franks
Except that is not what Rutan said.
Peter Franks
I control what I pledge, and therefore my statement is relevant.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> - Show quoted text -
thats is still hyperbole, as your "pledge" is not any more relevant
than anybody elses complaint about how tax dollars are spent.
erschro...@gmail.com
But they don't have the god-given right to be taken seriously.
erschro...@gmail.com
> Edward A. Falk typed:
>
> >"Rutan is a brilliant and innovative man. But last I heard, not a
> >climatologist."
>
> Reply:
>
> Is James Hansen a climatologist ? (Astronomer)
MS astronomy; Ph.D. physics
With a track record researching and publishing in climate science
(starting in 1967).
>
> Is David Suzuki a climatologist ? (Zoologist who has also studied
> genetics)
Anybody ever brought him up except you denialists?
>
> Is Al Gore a climatologist ? (Politician)
Again, it's only you denialists who ever quote him.
>
> No to all of them, and others... but Alarmists what us to listen to
> them.
We listen to what scientists say, those publishing in scientific
journals. We listen to what polls of scientists say. We listen to
what national science academies and scientific organization says.
erschro...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 02:11:26 +0000, Edward A. Falk wrote:
> > In article
> > George Crawley <adrastea2...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >>Burt Rutan? ...
>
> > Rutan is a brilliant and innovative man. But last I heard, not a
> > climatologist.
>
> > He has his blind spots. I heard him talk once, shortly after the
> > successful flights of Spaceship One. He referred to NASA as "Nay-Say"
> > and pointed out that he'd achieved sub-orbital flight for a tiny, tiny
> > faction of what it cost NASA to do the same thing.
>
> > And I'm thinking "dude, every scrap of technology in your spaceship,
> > with the exception of the tires and the tailskid came from NASA in the
> > first place." I suspect that if he'd started from the same
> > technological level that NASA started from, he'd have spent billions
> > doing it too.
>
> Are you aware of the controlled-stall method of re-entry he uses? I
> don't think that came from NASA.
>
> > So, he might be the world's foremost expert on building spaceships on
> > the cheap, but that doesn't make him an expert on everything under the
> > sun.
>
> It makes him smart enough to question everything until he understands
> it.
Really? Does he question how anti-tumor drugs work? Does he question
why an electron can go through 2 slits at the same time?
>AGW didn't pass that test.
>
> Feynman wasn't a renowned expert on O-rings either, but he was right and
> NASA was wrong on the cause of the Challenger explosion.
>
> Buckminster Fuller was fond of saying, "Nature doesn't have department
> heads." He was right.
So next time you need brain surgery, get an aerospace engineer.
Orval Fairbairn
<bde85066-9714-4b2d...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
"erschro...@gmail.com" <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 11:30�pm, Catoni <caton...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > Edward A. Falk typed:
> >
> > >"Rutan is a brilliant and innovative man. �But last I heard, not a
> > >climatologist."
> >
> > � Reply:
> >
> > � �Is James Hansen a climatologist ? �(Astronomer)
>
> MS astronomy; Ph.D. physics
>
Those degrees make him no mere a climatologist than a brain surgeon.
>
> With a track record researching and publishing in climate science
> (starting in 1967).
>
>
> >
> > �Is David Suzuki a climatologist ? �(Zoologist who has also studied
> > genetics)
>
> Anybody ever brought him up except you denialists?
>
> >
> > �Is Al Gore a climatologist ? � (Politician)
>
> Again, it's only you denialists who ever quote him.
But he is a chief spokesman for AGW and weven got a Nobel Peace Prize
for his infomercial on AGW!
> >
> > � �No to all of them, and others... but Alarmists what us to listen to
> > them.
>
> We listen to what scientists say, those publishing in scientific
> journals. We listen to what polls of scientists say. We listen to
> what national science academies and scientific organization says.
How qualified are they in data reduction? They are trying to "mark it
with chalk, cut with an axe and measure it with a micrometer."
> >
> > � �So why not listen to what Rutan has to say ? �Or is there a double
> > standard ?
Burt at least understands data analysis and its limitations.
--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.
erschro...@gmail.com
wrote:
> In article
> <bde85066-9714-4b2d-a401-abbbf9622...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "erschroedin...@gmail.com" <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 11:30 pm, Catoni <caton...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > Edward A. Falk typed:
>
> > > >"Rutan is a brilliant and innovative man. But last I heard, not a
> > > >climatologist."
>
> > > Reply:
>
> > > Is James Hansen a climatologist ? (Astronomer)
>
> > MS astronomy; Ph.D. physics
>
> Those degrees make him no mere a climatologist than a brain surgeon.
>
>
>
> > With a track record researching and publishing in climate science
> > (starting in 1967).
>
> > > Is David Suzuki a climatologist ? (Zoologist who has also studied
> > > genetics)
>
> > Anybody ever brought him up except you denialists?
>
> > > Is Al Gore a climatologist ? (Politician)
>
> > Again, it's only you denialists who ever quote him.
>
> But he is a chief spokesman for AGW and weven got a Nobel Peace Prize
> for his infomercial on AGW!
So? Again, it's only you denialists who keep bringing him up. Guess
what? On TV, actors act in commercials. They're not real doctors or
lawyers or engineers. They tell you what doctors or lawyers or
engineers say. Do you say, "I'm not going to buy Advil because (fill
in actor's name) is not a doctor"?
>
>
>
> > > No to all of them, and others... but Alarmists what us to listen to
> > > them.
>
> > We listen to what scientists say, those publishing in scientific
> > journals. We listen to what polls of scientists say. We listen to
> > what national science academies and scientific organization says.
>
> How qualified are they in data reduction? They are trying to "mark it
> with chalk, cut with an axe and measure it with a micrometer."
How qualified are your experts -- bloggers and right-wing columnists?
>
>
>
> > > So why not listen to what Rutan has to say ? Or is there a double
> > > standard ?
>
> Burt at least understands data analysis and its limitations.
>
Prove it. Hey, why doesn't he prove it? Why doesn't he publish
instead of blogging and speaking to aviation conventions?
Orval Fairbairn
<032c3c4e-117f-4e18...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
"erschro...@gmail.com" <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
More qualified than some scaremongers waving their arms, trying to get a
government study grant.
> > > > So why not listen to what Rutan has to say ? Or is there a double
> > > > standard ?
> >
> > Burt at least understands data analysis and its limitations.
> >
>
> Prove it. Hey, why doesn't he prove it? Why doesn't he publish
> instead of blogging and speaking to aviation conventions?
That is where his bread & butter come from.
TUKA
Ad-hominems, red herrings, appeals to authority. It's all you got,
boy.
--
erschro...@gmail.com
Yes, we admit it, in matters of science, we recognize science as an
authority. We do not believe science is what any yahoo thinks it is,
but consists of data, facts, laws, and theories that have been
repeatedly tested.
Since you dislike that, next time you need surgery, I suggest you ask
a plumber for a second opinion -- doctors just represent that
"authority."
Orval Fairbairn
<b2552dce-fe15-471f...@l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
"erschro...@gmail.com" <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
In science, real scientists provide the details of their experiments so
that others can duplicate their results. In AGW, both the data and the
methodology are obscure and subject to legitimate question and doubt.
Data: 1. Only the past century is available in quantity.
2. Are we dealing with daily high/low or intgreated?
3. Data from 100-300 years is sketchy and uncalibrated.
4. Data from 300-2000 years is anecdotal and estimated only.
5. Older data is derived from secondary sources and estimated only.
Methodology:
1. Data is mathematically filtered to synthesize a "daily average
temperature."
2. Mathematical filtering techniques can yield incorrect answers
when data streams end or input with dirty data.
Real science is not done via "consensus.
Catoni
>"We listen to what scientists say, those publishing in scientific
>journals. We listen to what polls of scientists say. We listen to
>what national science academies and scientific organization says."
Reply:
Character and honesty is not how many strings of letters there are
at the end of one's name, or whether or not you're a scientist. All
those letters do is get you your first job, and scientists are still
human, and can still have low moral standards, and even be criminal in
some cases, just like regular people.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> immersed in the proper scientific procedure). The larger group of
>
> read more »
Changes to mid atmospheric cirulation patterns caused by the changing
climate should be of great interest to him, in order to ensure his
vehicles stay within the intended flight path.
Fred the Red Shirt
the same 'reasoning' to aviation:
Who are the experts on aviation?
1) aeronautical engineers, academia or government
2) aeronautical engineer or spokesman for the aviation or related
industries.
3) Politician, Mainstream Media, Lawyer, Hollywood
4) Those who plan to profit from aviation
5) Those who demand a Socialist society
6) Those who fear expansion of Government control.
7) Global governance foreigners (UN and America's other global
adversaries)
8) Air traffic controllers.
Is it not clear that there is no reason to suppose that 3, 5, 6, and
7
actually are experts in aviation?
Does it look to anyone but me that 4, 5, 6,and 7 are paranoid
nonsense.
Did anyone but me notice that 7 presupposes that the UN is an
adversary of America?
And according to Rutan's comments below the table, 1) is the group
with the strongest bias who should be trusted the least.
And ATCs are the ones whom we should trust the most.