holy cannoli

[badhatharry]

The Koch Brothers strike again.

The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

[handle]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

The Koch Brothers strike again.

Nah, just your boy Rupert.

Although the scandal enveloping Rupert Murdoch’s media empire has focused on his British properties, it has also put News Corp’s. U.S. outlets under a brighter spotlight—particularly the prestigious Wall Street Journal he acquired by purchasing Dow Jones for $5 billion in 2007.

Is there anything that comes from his extreme right slanted media empire that you don't gobble up like it was truffles on caviar?

As to the content? Same old stuff that was used to support the "hoax" conjecture is now deployed to back the softened "no big deal" stance.

Like I said, progress.

But the same rebuttals still apply.

The first thing they mention as a "collection of stubborn scientific facts" is "climategate"! Even if you are right, you gotta do better than that to even get people to read on!

Check out the declining number of environmental articles since the Rupie took the helm of the WSJ:

[handle]

Oh, and I almost forgot the funniest part of your "scientific" article. The direct comparison of the worlds scientific community to that of the soviet union under Stalinist rule!:

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

No one with an actual, factual ax to grind would need to resort to this kind of false equivalence. Especially when touting their case as supported by "a collection of stubborn scientific facts".
I now really hope for your sake the no-panic crowd is wrong, because if they are right, they are doing their cause more harm than good IMO.

They are always saying "follow the money" meaning the scientists are fabricating climate concern to get grant money, but when you have almost unlimited oil and coal money behind you and this is the best you can come up with, it seems more an indicator of how weak your case really is!

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by handle

They are always saying "follow the money" meaning the scientists are fabricating climate concern to get grant money, but when you have almost unlimited oil and coal money behind you and this is the best you can come up with, it seems more an indicator of how weak your case really is!

Grant money, prestige, a place in history... pretty intoxicating. And lest we forget, safety from being thought of as a neanderthal or being barred from that research job you so want and need. This is a lot about politics with science taking the back seat.

And this article/letter is by no means the best skeptics can and have come up with. They've been coming up with substantive stuff for a very long time. Here's one example of a woman who does consistantly good analysis. People like Curry are not unique and all skeptics are interested in valid research and valid conclusions coming from that research.

The list of scientists is pretty impressive IMHO, and certainly as impressive as the supposed consensus list. Can you at least admit that the science is not settled as we were told so unequivocally?...which is to me the main point.

[handle]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Grant money, prestige, a place in history... pretty intoxicating. And lest we forget, safety from being thought of as a neanderthal or being barred from that research job you so want and need. This is a lot about politics with science taking the back seat.

And this article/letter is by no means the best skeptics can and have come up with. They've been coming up with substantive stuff for a very long time. Here's one example of a woman who does consistantly good analysis. People like Curry are not unique and all skeptics are interested in valid research and valid conclusions coming from that research.

The list of scientists is pretty impressive IMHO, and certainly as impressive as the supposed consensus list. Can you at least admit that the science is not settled as we were told so unequivocally?...which is to me the main point.

Badhat, 16 "scientists" is probably less than .001% of the total number of people working on this. I put the word "scientist" in quotes, because just a cursory scan of the names shows Burt Rutan, who I admire greatly for his work at scaled composites, is an engineer, and not a scientist, let alone a climate one. Why would they make the bold claim they are all scientists when this is a lie from the outset, even by the facts on shown right there the page?

These editorialists have the entire fossil fuel industry behind them, PLUS the Murdoch "conservative" propaganda machine, and they can't even keep the facts in their own piece from contradicting themselves!
Embarrassing, at best.

If you really believe that having a job is the reason for an overwhelming majority of PHD's conclusions on this, then ask yourself this question:

If one does not accept the data analysis of the majority of researchers, then how hard do you think it would be to get a position with the most profitable industry the world has ever known, supporting a denier case that could save them trillions of dollars?

If you want to get me and others to accept the doubters case, you have a very, very long uphill climb, and you are sliding backwards right now.
Even the timing on this Murdoch "editorial" is suspicious. Couldn't have anything to do with the recent thumbs down on the pipeline could it? Or was there new data that came in? NOPE!

But you keep believing this is a hoax, sorry, a non issue, wait, no need to panic, or is it no need for any drastic measures, what's the position du jour again?

But I haven't presented any science here, or rebutted your assertions or links. I've just pointed out that when exposed to a just quick sniff test, your case stinks to high heaven!

But this isn't even worth the time I've wasted posting this. You are gonna beat this drum till there's nothing to gain. Maybe you can get Aemjeff to provide a thousand links for you to trivialize. But your pipeline is dead till you can get Newt, Romney, or some other upstanding genius in the white house. Sorry.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by handle

Oh, and I almost forgot the funniest part of your "scientific" article. The direct comparison of the worlds scientific community to that of the soviet union under Stalinist rule!:


No one with an actual, factual ax to grind would need to resort to this kind of false equivalence. Especially when touting their case as supported by "a collection of stubborn scientific facts".

I think the point was how ugly politicized science actually gets.

[handle]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

I think the point was how ugly politicized science actually gets.

Under Stalin! And by factual deniers, BTW!

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by handle

Badhat, 16 "scientists" is probably less than .001% of the total number of people working on this.

I doubt that but so what? They don't claim to be the only scientists who think this way. They just happen to be 16 who got together, wrote the letter and signed it.

I put the word "scientist" in quotes, because just a cursory scan of the names shows Burt Rutan, who I admire greatly for his work at scaled composites, is an engineer, and not a scientist, let alone a climate one. Why would they make the bold claim they are all scientists when this is a lie from the outset, even by the facts on shown right there the page?

I actually would argue that aerospace engineering is a science. Never mind about climate...what makes aerospace engineering not a science?

These editorialists have the entire fossil fuel industry behind them, PLUS the Murdoch "conservative" propaganda machine, and they can't even keep the facts in their own piece from contradicting themselves!
Embarrassing, at best.

No proof, just ad hominums. That's embarassing! And what 'facts' contradict themselves?

If you really believe that having a job is the reason for an overwhelming majority of PHD's conclusions on this, then ask yourself this question:

I don't.

If you want to get me and others to accept the doubters case, you have a very, very long uphill climb, and you are sliding backwards right now.
Even the timing on this Murdoch "editorial" is suspicious. Couldn't have anything to do with the recent thumbs down on the pipeline could it? Or was there new data that came in? NOPE!

Oh yeah, it's all about the pipeline. God save us from that! Hansen says if the tar sands are mined that'll be game over for the planet and people believe him. Never mind that that oil is going to get mined anyway and sold to someone. At least it won't be making its filthy way across America's heartland!


Further, I don't think the doubters case is sliding backwards at all. For instance you might note that Canada pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol. OOOPS!

It's the alarmists who are losing steam. And it's because of the way that they presented their case and all of the scandals which have ensued. They set themselves up for failure. Classic unbridled hubris. It'll get ya every time.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

I think the point was how ugly politicized science actually gets.

Well at least they didn't compare anything to Nazis! That just gets so old.

From James Hansen:

Recently, after giving a high school commencement talk in my hometown, Denison, Iowa, I drove from Denison to Dunlap, where my parents are buried. For most of 20 miles there were trains parked, engine to caboose, half of the cars being filled with coal. If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains – no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.

Preserving creation for future generations is a moral issue as monumental as ending slavery in the 19th century or fighting Nazism in the 20th century.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by handle

No one with an actual, factual ax to grind would need to resort to this kind of false equivalence.

as the always delightful and charming James Hansen does quite often.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by handle

Under Stalin! And by factual deniers, BTW!

I found this quote yesterday while listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast, and I remembered the many threads in this forum to which it would apply. I decided to share it:

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ― Isaac Asimov

PS: The podcast includes a segment with an interview with Sean Carroll, if anyone is interested.

[Unit]

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ― Isaac Asimov

The flip-side is hubris, immodesty, arrogance, authoritarianism, elitism etc.....

Once again there are trade-offs.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by Unit

The flip-side is hubris, immodesty, arrogance, authoritarianism, elitism etc.....

Once again there are trade-offs.

I would hope you will grant this is not an either/or possibility. There are multiple points in between. There's no need for trade offs.

Accepting that there are undesirable extremes is fine. Embracing one extreme (exultation of ignorance) and making it appear as virtuous is what bothers me. It's regressive and brutish.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Ocean

Embracing one extreme (exultation of ignorance) and making it appear as virtuous is what bothers me. It's regressive and brutish.

This type of characterization is hardly ever true but it is a characterization that the opposition group always uses.

And just one more thing...climate skeptics are not exulting ignorance. They are heartily against it...as in an entire population in the thrall of a bunch of political opportunists who tell them the sky is falling. It's a religion, as Michael Crichton pointed out over a decade ago. Don't question or the planet will be annihilated.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

This type of characterization is hardly ever true but it is a characterization that the opposition group always uses.

We're all brutes intent on having our way prevail. Admit it.

And just one more item...climate skeptics are not exulting ignornace. They are heartily against it...as in an entire population in the thrall of a bunch of political opportunists who tell them the sky is falling. It's a religion, as Michael Crichton pointed out over a decade ago.

I think the ignorance is in not knowing how to evaluate controversy. If 99% of scientists say one thing, and 1% say another, who would you be more likely to believe? Let's say the 1% does not represent the top authorities in the topic, but rather a random collection of science related people. Who to believe?

What if that 1% support a claim that benefits a powerful lobby, such as the oil industry? What if the media platform that gives voice to that 1% happens to be a well-known biased media, which has been exposed repeatedly for presenting a very skewed view?

What is the interest of the 99% of scientists to make a claim? If someone is primarily driven by interest in money or funding they may pursue a whole bunch of careers, but very unlikely that they would choose a career in science for that purpose.

We know you've been invested in defending your point of view on climate change for a couple of years now. I'm not expecting to convince you, but rather show you that there's always some degree of dissent in science, and an integral part of it is to know how to evaluate different claims, weigh the body of evidence, and move forward with the claims that are best supported.

That doesn't mean that the dissenting voices should be ignored completely. If they have sufficient evidence, they would get funding from reputable sources. If their view supports a certain industry, that industry will fund them. Unfortunately, their results may be tainted by a biased source of funding, but, they can still present them.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Ocean

I think the ignorance is in not knowing how to evaluate controversy. If 99% of scientists say one thing, and 1% say another, who would you be more likely to believe? Let's say the 1% does not represent the top authorities in the topic, but rather a random collection of science related people. Who to believe?

I have gone into this statistical trick multiple times and I'm not going to do it again. Suffice it to say, it has been shown the the study that resulted in these numbers was not rigorous and yet the statistics stand as a red flag for the alarmist side.

As far as who to believe I would think you should do some independent reading. If you are truly interested in the subject and would like to do your own investigations I would direct you to three skeptics' sites. These are just three of many who are working in the field. There is much controversy and few conclusions but hopefully you can glean from these sites that these people are not the Neanderthals the left would make them out to be.

Judith Curry

Anthony Watts

Roger Pielke, Jr.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I have gone into this statistical trick multiple times and I'm not going to do it again. Suffice it to say, it has been shown the the study that resulted in these numbers was not rigorous and yet the statistics stand as a red flag for the alarmist side.

As far as who to believe I would think you should do some independent reading. If you are truly interested in the subject and would like to do your own investigations I would direct you to three skeptics' sites. These are just three of many who are working in the field. There is much controversy and few conclusions but hopefully you can glean from these sites that these people are not the Neanderthals the left would make them out to be.

Judith Curry

Anthony Watts

Roger Pielke, Jr.

Thank you for the links.

I am interested in the topic, and I already follow the sources that I can trust.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by handle

a cursory scan of the names shows Burt Rutan, who I admire greatly for his work at scaled composites, is an engineer, and not a scientist, let alone a climate one.

You don't have to be a climate scientist to be able to read data and evaluate whether or not research has been done properly or inproperly. Here's Rutan talking about why he is qualified to weigh in in the climate controversy.

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

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Ocean

I am interested in the topic, and I already follow the sources that I can trust.

I'm not sure if this means you will be looking at the links or not.

Oh I get it...you don't like to let anyone assume that you don't know everything.

Whatever.

god, I miss this forum.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Ocean

We know you've been invested in defending your point of view on climate change for a couple of years now. I'm not expecting to convince you, but rather show you that there's always some degree of dissent in science, and an integral part of it is to know how to evaluate different claims, weigh the body of evidence, and move forward with the claims that are best supported.

And we know that you really don't know much about the science but that you enjoy being a member of the well meaning do gooder club that really, really cares about the environment. And thanks so much but you really don't need to inform me that there is always some degree of dissent in science. I would like to remind and inform you that your side has stated unequivocally, that the science is settled.

Unfortunately, their results may be tainted by a biased source of funding, but, they can still present them

How very kind of you. They are presenting them in great quantity and more and more people are actually paying attention.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

And we know that you really don't know much about the science but that you enjoy being a member of the well meaning do gooder club that really, really cares about the environment. And thanks so much but you really don't need to inform me that there is always some degree of dissent in science. I would like to remind and inform you that your side has stated unequivocally, that the science is settled.



How very kind of you. They are presenting them in great quantity and more and more people are actually paying attention.

Lighten up, badhat, life is short.

It isn't that hard. Here. Here. And this.

I apologize. I said 99%. It's more like 97-98%.

[handle]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I doubt that but so what? They don't claim to be the only scientists who think this way. They just happen to be 16 who got together, wrote the letter and signed it.

It was an Murdoch controlled paper editorial, they didn't write it, they signed it.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I actually would argue that aerospace engineering is a science. Never mind about climate...what makes aerospace engineering not a science?

Engineering is applied science, engineers are not considered scientists, but nice try. You might want to check your facts, because now you look like you really don't know what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

No proof, just ad hominums. That's embarassing! And what 'facts' contradict themselves?

See engineers vs. scientists above.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Oh yeah, it's all about the pipeline. God save us from that! Hansen says if the tar sands are mined that'll be game over for the planet and people believe him. Never mind that that oil is going to get mined anyway and sold to someone. At least it won't be making its filthy way across America's heartland!


Further, I don't think the doubters case is sliding backwards at all. For instance you might note that Canada pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol. OOOPS!

Where's that pipeline coming from again? Bigger oops!!

Originally Posted by badhatharry

It's the alarmists who are losing steam. And it's because of the way that they presented their case and all of the scandals which have ensued. They set themselves up for failure. Classic unbridled hubris. It'll get ya every time.

Shorter Bandhat: Duh! Winning!

[handle]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

as the always delightful and charming James Hansen does quite often.

There are nuts on both sides, true, but that's beside my point concerning yours.

[handle]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

You don't have to be a climate scientist to be able to read data and evaluate whether or not research has been done properly or inproperly. Here's Rutan talking about why he is qualified to weigh in in the climate controversy.

Your Rutan quote was a comment response to this rebuttal of the WSJ article.

Here's the comment right under his:

Michael Tobis, January 28, 2012 at 11:12 pm :
Bert Rutan’s reply here is vastly more cogent than the absurdly vague and tendentious article in the WSJ to which he is a signatory.

Nevertheless, he remains in thrall of a completely inaccurate view of the intellectual basis for the concerns about anthropogenic climate change, the substance of the discipline, the nature of the models, and even the balance of observational evidence. There are numerous errors in this exposition.

I hope Bert Rutan is amenable to re-examining the evidence. People who stick their necks out that far are often hard to reach, unfortunately.

The evidence that the sensitivity of GMST to CO2 forcing is in the neighborhood of 3 C per doubling is quite strong, but the evidence that it is above 1 C is absolutely compelling. I would welcome honest discussions competent openminded critics the field has on this matter, though I confess it has been quite a while since I encountered one.

But regardless of the state of the science, it is very difficult to argue that it is not necessary to take policy action. If you even stipulate that there is a CO2 sensitivity it becomes difficult to argue that the immaturity of the science argues in your favor. The less we know, the greater the risk that the sensitivity is very high.

Direct observation tells us little in the absence of a mature science, because the lags in the system remain uncharacterized. Rutan’s closing sentence, then, is surprisingly naive. The atmosphere/ocean thermodynamic system has multiple time constants, some on the order of a thousand years. We must resort to physics rather than relying solely on observations. If you insist that the physics is unknown, the damage we may be doing is unconstrained, and we’d best stop rocking the boat sooner than later.

Finally, it would also be best to go about identifying who the best scientists are, who think about this problem, without obsessing about the sorts of errors generally made by non-scientists with “granola” tendencies, which are entirely irrelevant.

Lindzen indeed (with Houghton) was coauthor of an excellent atmospheric dynamics paper some thirty years ago. I think it was a masterpiece. But he pretty much stands against every other competent dynamicist, paleoclimatologist or modeler.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by handle

There are nuts on both sides, true, but that's beside my point concerning yours.

But James Hansen is one of the most respected nuts on the planet and I might add, a very highly paid employee of your federal government.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by handle

It was an Murdoch controlled paper editorial, they didn't write it, they signed it.

The way I see it the scientists wrote it. You say a Wall Street Journal editor wrote it. Who is he/she?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by handle

Engineering is applied science, engineers are not considered scientists, but nice try. You might want to check your facts, because now you look like you really don't know what you are talking about.

So engineers are not scientists. What is the defining quality of a scientist may I ask? For instance are people involved in genetic engineering scientists or are they engineers?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by handle

Your Rutan quote was a comment response to this rebuttal of the WSJ article.

Here's the comment right under his:

Yes, I know that the Rutan quote was a rebuttal of the post criticizing the WSJ article. That's where I got it. What's your point? You certainly didn't address mine.

[Unit]

Originally Posted by Ocean

I would hope you will grant this is not an either/or possibility. There are multiple points in between. There's no need for trade offs.

Accepting that there are undesirable extremes is fine. Embracing one extreme (exultation of ignorance) and making it appear as virtuous is what bothers me. It's regressive and brutish.

When "the facts" are subject of debate ignorance might be bliss. Better still would be 'informed skepticism'.

I did not realize at first that this was a discussion about global warming, but even in that case being a skeptic or being partial to skepticism does not mean embracing or praising ignorance, does it?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Unit

but even in that case being a skeptic or being partial to skepticism does not mean embracing or praising ignorance, does it?

Oh yes it does! The fate of the whole flipping planet is on the line and those pesky guys are standing in the way of fixin' things.

This is such an old story getting played out in modern times.

Earth Day predictions 1970. They're all wonderful but the first, in light of the current debate is, as they say, priceless:

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson


“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

[handle]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Yes, I know that the Rutan quote was a rebuttal of the post criticizing the WSJ article. That's where I got it. What's your point? You certainly didn't address mine.

I was providing context for my link and quote that made my point better than I could. But you barely scanned my post, obviously.
Notice how I generously give you credit for laziness rather than accusing you of ignorance or stupidity? Try to live up to the expectation.

Here's the point (again):

Nevertheless, he remains in thrall of a completely inaccurate view of the intellectual basis for the concerns about anthropogenic climate change, the substance of the discipline, the nature of the models, and even the balance of observational evidence. There are numerous errors in this exposition.

[handle]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

But James Hansen is one of the most respected nuts on the planet and I might add, a very highly paid employee of your federal government.

You're right, I should never take your word for it. Prove you point then. He compared the modern global science community to that of the Soviet Union under Stalin? Or what?

[handle]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

The way I see it the scientists wrote it. You say a Wall Street Journal editor wrote it. Who is he/she?

Good question, I couldn't find an author, but an editorial piece usually means the editor wrote it unless otherwise attributed. Maybe your propaganda god Rupert wrote it. I does smack of his far right POV.

I like how you funnel my responses down to the only point you think you can refute:

Originally Posted by handle

It was an Murdoch controlled paper editorial, they didn't write it, they signed it.



Engineering is applied science, engineers are not considered scientists, but nice try. You might want to check your facts, because now you look like you really don't know what you are talking about.



See engineers vs. scientists above.


Where's that pipeline coming from again? Bigger oops!!

Shorter Bandhat: Duh! Winning!

Way to dumb down the conversation. You think you are gaining ground in these things, but you just grind them down to pointlessness in an effort to get the last post.
Keep up the good work for your cause! Your efforts are appreciated though, by the other side, that is.

[handle]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

So engineers are not scientists. What is the defining quality of a scientist may I ask? For instance are people involved in genetic engineering scientists or are they engineers?

You're kidding, right? I just explained this.
FROM THE WIKI (yawn):

Scientists are also distinct from engineers, those who develop devices that serve practical purposes. When science is done with a goal toward practical utility, it is called 'applied science' (short of the creation of new devices that fall into the realm of engineering).

I'm just going to start merely contradicting your posts, and let you ruin your cause by exposing a lack of competence with regards to critical thinking.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by handle

You're kidding, right? I just explained this.
FROM THE WIKI (yawn):


I'm just going to start merely contradicting your posts, and let you ruin your cause by exposing a lack of competence with regards to critical thinking.

Engineering is not science. Engineers are not scientists. Engineers make or design things. The test for the quality of an engineer's work is whether or not the things function within the parameters of their designs. Scientists produce papers. The test for the quality of a scientist's work is based on peer approval in regard to the papers he or she has produced. These are intrinsically different tasks, requiring completely different sets of skills (and that's apart from the specific technical skill sets that accompany each discipline.) And you're right, this goes directly to harry's critical thinking skills, at least insofar as she allows us to glimpse them, such as they are, in this forum.

[handle]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Oh I get it...you don't like to let anyone assume that you don't know everything.

Whatever.

In your own words:

Originally Posted by badhatharry

oh my goodness! the mask comes off.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by handle

I like how you funnel my responses down to the only point you think you can refute:

You've finally discovered my dastardly plan.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by handle

You're kidding, right? I just explained this.
FROM THE WIKI (yawn):


I'm just going to start merely contradicting your posts, and let you ruin your cause by exposing a lack of competence with regards to critical thinking.

Ruin my cause on a long since abandoned forum. That's rich.

Your original point (?) was that Rutan had no business weighing in on the subject of climate change because he is not a scientist. AND your other brilliant point was to say that the writer of the editorial (which it was not and who you could not identify) mis-stated that 16 scientists signed it.

And then you accuse me of picking silly points to argue. Hilarious.

And BTW, my husband is an electro-mechanical engineer and when asked, he said that very often he was involved in scientific endeavors in his R&D work. So I would say that there are many cutting edge engineers (of which even you would have to admit Rutan is one) who could honestly call themselves scientists. Not to mention the fact that an engineer of his stature is certainly qualified to speak about the efficacy of the climate models and statistics which are being offered in the research.

And you never explained just what is the the defining feature of science or a scientist that makes it/him unique...except to say DUHHHH!

I suspect that is because you can't.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by handle

I was providing context for my link and quote that made my point better than I could. But you barely scanned my post, obviously.
Notice how I generously give you credit for laziness rather than accusing you of ignorance or stupidity? Try to live up to the expectation.

Here's the point (again):
Nevertheless, he remains in thrall of a completely inaccurate view of the intellectual basis for the concerns about anthropogenic climate change, the substance of the discipline, the nature of the models, and even the balance of observational evidence. There are numerous errors in this exposition.

You think somehow that I am supposed to be cowed by some guy on the internet saying that Rutan is in error. I suppose you also think that I should change my mind about the whole issue because some guy on the internt thinks that Rutan has a completely inaccurate view.

I doubt very much that you have any notion about what the real issues are in this conflict and that is why you have to use some guy on the internet's words instead of your own.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by handle

You're right, I should never take your word for it. Prove you point then. He compared the modern global science community to that of the Soviet Union under Stalin? Or what?

Um no...he compared not being as hysterical as he is about the imminent threat of climate change or warming or whatever they're calling it these days to sending Jews to the gas chambers.

That was in response to this from you: No one with an actual, factual ax to grind would need to resort to this kind of false equivalence.