Posted on 08/14/2014 6:10:20 PM PDT by tbw2
Many scientists and non-scientists are discussing "Global Warming" (or as it is increasingly being called "Anthropogenic Climate Change" or ACC). ACC would simply be an interesting topic for discussion if it were not for the politicization, polarization, and sensationalism that have accompanied the science.
(Excerpt) Read more at engineering.com ...
It is refreshing to read something produced by one whose education far surpasses the vast majority of out so-called climate scientists.
For another engineer’s view, see:
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
Rutan is rather more blunt about Global Hot Air than Simpson.
Every scientific field I’ve ever worked in has had people of divergent opinions, even fields which most people consider ‘settled.’ Only with ‘climate’ issues have I ever heard one side deride another with ‘lone nut’ appellations. I first heard it in 2003. Clearly some sciences are more equal than others.
Good read. Long but informative.
Interesting post, will bookmark for later.
To me, it’s so obvious that GW is all about govt control of the masses. Once you realize their motivation, it all flows from there.
Now THAT is a rebuttal to AGW, not the nay saying I see here so often on FR. It is a must read, bottom line, the models used by the AGW crowd are worthless.
Being trained as an engineer myself, I am always amazed when I encounter people with about the same level of training as I have had who believe this crap.
I know one guy who is a metallurgist (PhD) who has swallowed this hook, line, and sinker.
“The politics are particularly insidious. Governments are doing real harm to their economies by mandating that “40 percent of the national power supply will come from renewable sources,” or “CO2 emissions from power plants must be reduced by 30 percent” or “Cap and Trade” or “Carbon Taxes.” The tone of the majority of engineers in the www.eng-tips.com discussions has been “Show me how raising my taxes, utility costs, and fuel costs will impact the climate that my grandchildren will live in.” The only response is to trot out yet another computer model running on adulterated data with a potentially biased calibration.
The politicians and press may have convinced some portion of the general public that this proposition is supported in the science, but they are quite a ways from convincing the preponderance of the engineering community. While I can’t find any “skeptics” who have become “warmists” or “warmists” who have become “skeptics,” there have been a large number who have gone from “its not my field, and I don’t have time to think about it” to very skeptical. Fewer of the uncaring masses have moved into the warmist camp.”
Leave it to an engineer to search out the rat in the theory. Great analysis of the “models” and the selection of which of many competing models to publicize. It’s all a big ideological con job, the social Darwinism of the 21st century. Also there is a lot of money in it.
I’m only disappointed in his characterization of the position I lean to as “extremely skeptical”. “Sure the climate is changing, it is always changing”.
Being an engineer myself... I say “deal with it” when it comes to climate change. The amount of energy I would need to actually change the climate of this planet is so massive that humans are simply not capable of producing the amount of energy required.
We can’t control the sun. We can’t control volcanoes and earthquakes. We can, however, control our response to them. So the earth warms up a few degrees over 100 years. PLANT A SHADE TREE IN YOUR YARD!!! Install an air conditioner. If the planet cools a few degrees turn the heat up. Buy shorts. Crops can be easily replanted in different zones. We will never run out of water if the political will was there to install desalinizing plants all along the coast.
BUT, nope. Liberal solutions require massive government, taxes, control, and misery.
ping
* Without Co2, there is no vegetation/flora; without vegetation, there is no animal/fauna life, either, since all animals either live on vegetation or live on animals that do.
Excellent!
I am actually less skeptical than most here about AGW. But in the end, the final truth is that _if_ its real, it is extremely unlikely that we will ever be able to do anything about it. Like Lomborg, I think we'll just have to deal with it.
Nice post. I’m going to save it.
Good stuff from Burt Rutan.
Bookmark
Good read even for this old uneducated antique.
But there is a street sense that many of us antiques use in everyday life that has worked for millions.
I don’t put much faith in the opinions or conclusions of so called scientists who are willing to ruin careers of skeptics simply for questioning methodology of the research.
I don’t put much faith in name callers who attempt to discredit all who disagree with them. There has even been suggestions to arrest those who question or disagree.
Just what is to be gained and by whom? Often that paints a really good picture showing motive.
It appears to me that this whole thing is about creating a revenue stream for national and world government types.
Bookmark
Bookmark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.