Burt Rutan on AGW alarmism 7

[btrueblood]

If you ask a movie star (or similar persons of un-scientific training) what their impression of the accuracy of a computer model of the earth's atmosphere is, they would probably be much more positive regarding it than the typical engineer, who has had (hopefully) at least some exposure to fluids modelling, and/or the analysis of chaotic systems.

I would not trust the average movie star to pour water out of a boot, even one with the instructions printed on the heel.

But, that, like all of this ^^^ (and I could post the links to AGW threads #1 thru 100), is just one guy's opinion. Of course, my opinion is much more valid than yours, for obvious reasons.

 

[berkshire]

The amusing item, a week or two ago, was Al Gore being bushwhacked by a couple of reporters, who asked him his opinion of global warming now that Washington DC had record snowfalls. His response " I am not giving an interview right now" when pressed further, again said, " I am not giving an interview"


B.E.

 

[GregLocock]

Well he was right!

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[Comcokid]

Here's another very recent article on one aspect of 'climate change'.

http://www.physorg.com/news190558013.html

Here they claim that measurements cannot account for half of the heat in the climate.

But rather than question the measurement methods and assumptions, the conclude that the heat is going into another part of the eco/climate system that they don't know of.

It seems that in this case, the data interpretation is sufficient to support the 'global climate change' frenzy while at the same time the data doesn't support what they do know. In the end, they question where the heat is going rather than question if the measurements and assumptions are correct in the first place.

 

[TheTick]

As responsible technical and scientific professionals, what we can NOT do is allow the alarmists (or anti-alarmists) to discount data or make unreasonable leaps of logic. It is always appropriate to take stock of the facts in a detached manner and let the facts speak for themselves first.

Also, follow the money. There are plenty who would profit from AGW. Examining motives is fair game, and always should be. No fact or person is beyond scrutiny.

 

[cranky108]

The fact is half of the stuff written either for or agenst AWG should classified as Science-Fiction. The question is which half.

I woulden't care at all, except someone started wanting taxes to fix the problem. So now we need to look at the followers on each side, and why they want this.

Both sides have professors clameing they are right. But one side has eco-terrests, and protesters that throw things. Would you believe them?
These are the same prople who, if asked, don't know the facts. They are motivated by emotion.

 

[rb1957]

whilst they probably don't Know the facts, much less what the facts mean, i'm sure they believe they know, which is a much worse state of affairs ...

 

[NomLaser]

I have no problem with differing viewpoints until someone wants to increase taxes to fix something that may not even be a problem.

 

[rb1957]

i have no problem, either, with differing viewpoints, until the other guy says i'm Wrong and need to adopt his view (which is Right)

 

[mauricestoker]

rb1957,

I have no problem with differing views, or with the other person not knowing what they are talking about but still insisting they are right, unless it's not my wife.

 

[rb1957]

i'm safe here ... my wife would never read such "nerdy" stuff, and she doesn't get out of the kitchen much (i can say that 'cause she'll never read it !)

 

[zdas04]

When I talk about this kind of stuff my wife says "Wa Wa Wa, you sound like the teacher on the TV version of Penuts".

David