Jeff Id of the Air Vent reminds me with a video recently made available that that Burt Rutan has been giving active lectures on his view of global warming. WUWT covered Rutan’s Oshkosh EAA presentation last summer, but we didn’t have video then, only his powerpoint presentation.
Burt Rutan – aviation pioneer, engineer, test pilot, climate skeptic. Note the car.
Rutan’s PowerPoint file is posted at:
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
For those that don’t have PowerPoint, I’ve converted it to a PDF file for easy and immediate reading online which you can download here.
And you can watch the video as Rutan presents at EAA:
We have all these Marxist types masquerading as tree huggers and saying we need “Green Tech”. Ask one of these “Greens” to show an example of green technology developed by Greens themselves and you won’t find a single example. What is green technology? It’s a greenjacking of clean, efficient technology which Burt Ratan, a libertarian, has been a pioneer of.
I remember him. One of my staff worked to build Scaled Composites.
I saw his summary several months ago and forgot about it.
Isn’t Rutan also a good friend of Richard Branson who is a global warming proponent?
Most of Rutan’s money these days comes from Richard Branson. If Rutan came out anti-AGW, he company would collapse.
On target, up to date, and well explained for lay folk. Top quality. Congratulations Burt and thanks Anthony.
“Al Gore’s Holy Hologram (15:20:29) :
Ask one of these “Greens” to show an example of green technology developed by Greens themselves and you won’t find a single example.”
Don’t laugh. I’m working ATM for a company that develops electronics for PV systems. My boss’s opinion about CO2 and Global Warming: “Well that’s not proven. The connection with cosmic rays OTOH – look at cloud chambers…” so he knew of Svensmark.
We’re all engineering kinda persons and the project we’re in is subsidized by EU money.
Besides, developing these solutions is worthwhile nevertheless.
Has Burt Rutan given this presentation to his Virgin Galactic business partner Sir Richard Branson?
Rutan’s PowerPoint file is posted at:
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
For those that don’t have PowerPoint, I’ve converted it to a PDF file for easy and immediate reading online which you can download here.
I clicked on the PowerPoint link, I’m looking at a page with “Burt Rutan’s 2009 Oshkosh Climate Change Presentation:” showing “Version 11 in pdf format.”
What’s the difference in pdf’s?
Sorry, Burt, but your analysis is so absurd that I would be terrified to get in an airplane that you either flew or designed. “Those who want socialism”? Really? Who among the alarmists, pray tell, is that?
All of your conclusions about the data are wrong. Please read:IPCC IV, Six Degrees, The Discovery of Global Warming, and any other book on the subject that is written by a credible climatologist. And no, they are not engaged in a cabal to snatch research grants and impose World Government, sorry. I know a number of them personally, and they are a group of earnest scientists who are terrified about what they are discovering. That will never include you, but please do not put together Power Point presentations on a subject about which you know nothing.
Excellent.
Mr. Levenstein, I presume.
Not to sound sexist, but I am now even more interested in statistics after reading this quote –
“Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.”
Go Burt! Not really surprising though. That’s a guy that built a pioneering and successful company by himself and not through political regulation and handouts. AGW has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with power and money and he gets it.
I guess Mr Rutan would agree that electric cars are a wonderful idea: clean, quiet, very cheap (both fuel and maintenance wise and that’s why GM didn’t like EV1).
You can really tell that he is an engineer, not a public speaker.
That’s a pity because what he says is cogent & if better presented would have a significant affect.
DaveE
you wish that you could somehow get this type of presentation to as many people as you can to show how scary this stuff really is and how diabolical people like waxman and markley are in pulling this scam.
@Mike roddy:
The “earnest scientists” you are mentioning are the likes as Phil Jones, who would rather destroy data than show them for verification, or the likes as Joachim Schellnhuber who seriously tells that the world will “explode” in 2050, if we do nothing against that then 9.5b humans want to have a decent quality of life? Just to name those two.
Are you serious?
Intelligent people like Monckton, Rutan, Lindzen and many others try hard to bring common sense back into this misused climate religion discussion.
It’s about time.
mike roddy,
you missed the whole point when you say go look at the Ipcc report. the point is that the ipcc has been manipulating the data for years. And just because you know some people does not mean they are competent. More often than not, scientists that do not beleive in the “consensus” tend to lose their funding and are ostracized.
And yes, you will find that the top political people who are pushing this agenda are socialists such as waxman, markley, kofi annan, maurice strong and just about all of the Upper level echelon of the UN who believe they are the sole authrority.
Burt Rutan is respected by many people. His name alone will change minds about global warming.
mike roddy (16:16:25) :
You should take a closer look at the crowd jumping in the AGW bandwagon. A lot of them very definitely are socialists, though your associates may well not be.
Also consider Engineers Vs Climate scientists.
An engineer’s theories have to work in the real work or he’s out of a job. It doesn’t matter how pretty the theory is or how well he presents it. If it doesn’t work then Poof! It’s gone. As far as his planes go, I expect they work very well.
Climate scientists, on the other hand, merely need to persuade someone and do not need to rely on hard, observational evidence. When their theories don’t match the real world they are paid to reinvent those theories. This is why Dr. Mann and Co remained employed.
Rutan makes his point of view very clear here.
And if it matters, he seems to be a lot greener than the rest of us.
mike roddy (16:16:25)
Contratulations, you took the alarmist bait.
a) You could not allow someone to explain in common language what took millions of dollars of taxpayer money to create through grants.
b) You had to do so in an elitist way, and critisize the presenter.
Prepare to be hacked to bits, I can’t wait for the show.
Took over twenty minutes on dial-up to download the 7MB pdf at the PowerPoint link, while trying not to do anything else online.
Worth it.
Started downloading the converted-PP pdf being hosted on WUWT, says it’s 5.2 MB. About 10 minutes left to go…
I am curios what Burt Rutan thinks of ClimateGate.
robert (17:28:28) :
mike roddy is missing a lot of things.
I have told many contacts for several years that it was only an amount of time that the truth on the Alarmists’ would be drug out in the light on there shady claims that there was a looming disastor from AGW. You can only hide so long in a House made of Straw. The screw is finally turning and their BS is being shown for exactly what it is. We may have had a little global warming on the last 150 years (that is even in dispute when you re-move the UHI (for example in Rural MN. it is -17F below zero this and 5F degrees above in Minneapolis 90 miles north of me) and some of the extra few tenths of warming can be attributed to Co2. But there is no immenent disastor from the tiny bit of warming from co2. And considering man flourishes more with a warmer Earth, food production rises and lives are saved. When at the same time a colder earth would be a true immenent disaster awaiting man and the earth, famines would be rampant leaving much of man to starve as well many species of animals. May I ask what is the ideal tempreture for the Earth? Does any of the Alarmist have an answer for that? I would presume it would be higher than today. Also higher Co2 levels would spur more food production as well. So again what is the ideal Co2 level? I am a farmer and am hoping for higher Co2 levels and a warmer Earth, but there is nothing I can do about it. I just hope we don’t slip into a colder Earth which truly would be a disastor that no one would want……..John…….
@Mike Roddy
Do you not know who this man is? He is nothing less than a ground breaking aeronautical engineer. He is every bit as accomplished in that field as any climate scientist, on either side of the issue, is in their field. He does not attempt to delve into their areas he only discusses areas where he is unquestionably as much an expert as them. I particularly enjoyed his references to the obvious natural negative feedbacks that must exist in the climate and are observed in the empirical record. This is an issue that I have always thought was under reported and it goes to the heart of the IPCC GCMs.
@Mike Roddy,
Mike, I learned a long time ago that you can glean more from how a person acts than from what they say. If the great fellows you “know” are so “terrified,” why the carbon orgy in Carbon-hägen? Funny how the most “terrified” folks are acting quite the opposite of what they are preaching. They are the Jim and Tammy Fay Baker of the 21st Century, quite simply. When they start acting like they’re “terrified” then I’ll believe they’re “terrified.”
mike roddy (16:16:25) :
You’d better forget about the IPCC report. Even the newest version (2007) covers “scientific” findings up to 2006 only. In view of the vast amounts of information published since then, it’s already no more than a paleographic document.
but what does he think about climategape
Obviously not given Branson’s recent comments about anyone who doesn’t “believe in it” is a threat to human existence or something.
Branson better not hear about this or he is going to be mightily upset with Rutan.
Isn’t it possible that Branson, astute businessman that he is, might not actually believe in AGW? For the past ten years or so, any businessman who announced that AGW is a scam might end up selling less product.
Just a thought. And a second thought: maybe Branson is just a really nice, non-vindictive guy…
…nah.
Thank You Mr. Rutan! You are a great counter to Mr. Gore’s hysterics.
John:
“May I ask what is the ideal tempreture for the Earth? Does any of the Alarmist have an answer for that? I would presume it would be higher than today. Also higher Co2 levels would spur more food production as well. So again what is the ideal Co2 level?”
John, I’m sure you know the answer.
Any other time and place, if we were divorced from the drama, we would be trying to raise temps and CO2. To make the planet more productive, and, if for no other reason, to hedge our bets against another ice age.
But I don’t think any of us are dumb enough to think we are smart enough to actually control the climate, no matter what.
mike roddy (16:16:25) :
Sorry, Burt, but your analysis……………………. “Those who want socialism”? Really? Who among the alarmists, pray tell, is that?
Well, Mike, this guy comes to mind:
http://lornakismet.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/van-jones-3.jpg
and the guy he was working for?…
http://lornakismet.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/van-jones-3.jpg
Apparently, you have no idea who Burt Rutan is. So, you choose a pompous bloated science flunkie (Gore) over one of the most brilliant aircraft designers of all time? Time to get on the winning team. The IPCC is in a hard spin with the nose up.
One of Rutan’s better known designs-
http://www.citizenkidd.com/Theory/Pages/..%5CImages%5CSpecial%5CVoyager.jpg
Rutan states in his PPT that he has a bet with Branson on the subject. It is possible for reasonable people to disagree and still be friends.
i assume he was talking to pilots and aviation enthusiast’s, reasonable people all, so not much gained.
probably too long for some with shorter attention spans, or only interested in short term gains.
maybe it’s another straw on the camels back?
thanks guys for ripping this roddy apart. I always love when the libs send someone to monitor these sites and tell us how dumb we are. i wish there is someway we could organize and protest to our “superiors” and make our voice heard especially with the news that obama is going to use a prior supreme court decision to force cap and trade on us.
“It is possible for reasonable people to disagree and still be friends.”
Normally, yes, but I recently read that Branson said people who disagree on that issue aren’t fit to be in positions of responsibility. I will see if I can find the comments, they were extremely harsh if I remember correctly.
Rutan strikes me as the kind of gutsy individuals who’s going to tell it like he sees it regardless of the consequences. Branson knows it, respects it and relies on it. He would not have it any other way. He’s as savvy a businessman as Rutan is an engineer. I’m sure he is under strong pressure from politicians and acquaintances to stop employing Rutan’s services but it won’t happen. Branson fully groks the true causal relationship between quality and profit.
I hate to repost this, but in one of the videos you see Burt Ratan demonstrating parallel warming (the rates of warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940, and 1975-1998) as shown in Lord Monckton’s letter. I plotted the trend lines calculated their slopes. I showed that 1860-1880’s slope is slightly less than that of 1910-1940 & 1975-1998. The latter two periods of warming were virtually identical (well, it would take 4,000 years to differ by 1.0’C – clearly any difference is pure noise).
I blogged about it here:
http://www.theclimateconspiracy.com/?p=123
It’s funny, because the literature will happily give natural variations credit for the 1910-1940 warming, but they insist that 1975-1998 must have been caused by external (man-made) forces, despite the fact that they had the same rates of warming.
(And this is using Had CRU’s variance adjusted data – the most pro-AGW data there is!)
Branson is a very successful businessman but having a nose for business is not a substitute for education. As far as I know, Branson never graduated from high school.
crosspatch (18:46:09),
Thanks! That fits in perfectly with my baseless conjecture @18:09:37.
Mike Roddy says..”I know a number of them personally, and they are a group of earnest scientists who are terrified about what they are discovering.”
Well, Mike, we’ve been reading their emails, and we’re terrified about what they’ve been doing. What they have been caught red handed doing. For credibility you want us to read a work of what we now know to be fiction?
What is so great about Burt’s contribution to this is now there’s perspective of a very credible engineer. You ain’t gonna pull any wool over this guy’s eyes.
Roddy just regurgitates a Team mantra. “We earnest. Trust us.”
right.
@crosspatch
I am not in any way attempting to defend Branson. I just think it’s difficult to get people to change their mind if we keep calling them idiots.
Mike Roddy, just what is a “credible climatologist”? To my mind, that’s someone who has made predictions on what the climate will do and had those predictions proven in the real world. Or one that has developed climate theories that thoroughly explain past observations, like the global oscillations in world temperatures or what causes ice ages, and shown good correlation between his theories and the historical record. If you know of such a person, please share with us his name and accomplishments, I don’t believe I’ve ever come across such a “credible climatologist”.
Sure is fun watching the unknown and unaccomplished trying to denigrate a man whom they clearly recognize as their superior.
You all know who you are, but Roddy is the guy who really got up my nose.
Roddy, when you achieve a feat similar to designing, designing the manufacturing techniques, building and flying an aircraft around the world unrefueled, give me a call. Until then, piss off. Maroon.
Burt Rutan is the consummate engineer, Data, Measurement Error, Accuracy, and Empirical Confirmation of Theories are the gold standard. Any engineer would understand his analysis, and to “mike roddy” the above is more important to well designed systems than non-factual ad hominem attacks. In our world theory is only the first step. Design, testing, proof of concept, prototype, proof of concept testing, and final production verification are what is required build safe reliable systems. Otherwise people will be injured or killed. That is what makes engineers different from the purely theoretical sciences.
Mike, would you ride in an aircraft that after testing, only the data that agreed with what the designer expected was selected? Would you want to be the test subject on that plane? Would you place your family in that kind of jeopardy? Most of his concern is that this is exactly what the various NGOs and Governments want to do to us. Place us in a position of disadvantage and economic danger using poor data and analysis.
My data I generate at work affects millions of dollars of spending, and risk. If I only included data that supported my position and actively excluded valid data that did not I would be fired. That is why many engineers like myself have severe issues with this climate analysis. The data does not support it! To us you must then either rethink your theory, or come up with a new one.
As has been said may timed before:
The proposer of the theory is responsible to prove the case, not the questioner’s job to prove his. Also, great claims require an equally great proof. Any one of the graphs shown during the presentation should have eliminated this theory. The fact that it has not shows that this is not science, but religion.
Those wanting to open the Powerpoint presentation can download OpenOffice for free and use Impress.
@crosspatch, et al
Galileo didn’t graduate from high school either.
mike roddy (16:16:25) :
If you are serious in evaluating the evidence, read the other side of published peer reviewed science in Climate Change Reconsidered, the 880 pg 2009 report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.
It is rather fascinating that as this site gets more and more popular (look at the hit counter!) it’s getting to be seen as more and more of a threat by the AGW crowd – they used to ignore it completely.
And it’s also funny how they either give a couple of ranting posts and quit trying (like Roddy here) or they lapse into vulgarity and get banned like that Frost sockpuppet did this morning.
I keep waiting for an AGW who can actually engage in a civil and rational conversation – haven’t found one yet.
Climategate has show the warmers to be not only wrong, but even criminally so. From that alone it is clear we are headed in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, knowing you are going the wrong way isn’t sufficient if you don’t change course.
We’re not out of the woods yet, people.
“mike roddy (16:16:25) :
Please read:IPCC IV, Six Degrees, The Discovery of Global Warming, and any other book on the subject that is written by a credible climatologist.”
Q: What is the smallest library on Earth?
A: The Library Of The Collected Works Of Credible Climatologists.
ROTFLPMP. Thanks! Thanks!
An instructive exercise might be to put all of the products and projects (actual material, usable objects) in one pile, and all scientific theories (which by their very nature are mostly wrong)in another pile and decide which pile represents the most benefits to the human race. Turns out that theories, a dime a dozen in any group of sophomores, are the highest pile, cost the most public money and have the lowest utility, while products and projects, developed by engineers on their own hooks(no sophomores need apply) provide almost all of the measurable wealth and therefore standard of living on this planet.
Galls me considerably to see this blog, dedicated to discussions of life, science, nature, technology and recent news being accessed and increasingly dominated by ring knocker supremicists.
What separates these guys from Michael Mann? Just an opinion.
DonS (19:10:23) :
Sure is fun watching the unknown and unaccomplished trying to denigrate a man whom they clearly recognize as their superior.
You all know who you are, but Roddy is the guy who really got up my nose.
Roddy, when you achieve a feat similar to designing, designing the manufacturing techniques, building and flying an aircraft around the world unrefueled, give me a call. Until then, piss off. Maroon.
Don, the following is from an odious Michael post:
“Michael Roddy graduated with honors from Berkeley, and has written numerous magazine articles and Congressional testimonies on environmental and construction issues. He currently owns and operates a small hotel energy management company, with offices in Seattle, Napa, and Yucca Valley, California. Mike can be reached at mike.greenframe@gmail.com.”
And this is the post:
“The BEAST 15 Most Heinous Climate Villains
Posted by admin On December – 29 – 2009
Some of the bastards responsible for subverting public understanding of climate change
I asked Mike earlier if his unspecified degree was in science or engineering, but he didn’t respond. Do they even offer science or engineering at Berkeley?
This is the site link, if anyone wants to wade thru it – nice caricatures tho.
http://www.buffalobeast.com/?p=1237&cpage=1#comment-214
a credible climatologist
That would be Jones, Mann, Hansen, and their collaborators?
David L. Hagen (19:24:59) :
Those wanting to open the Powerpoint presentation can download OpenOffice for free and use Impress.
O.O. Calc is a pretty good substitute for M$ Excel too. (Doesn’t do smoothing tho.)
wws (19:31:10) :
It is rather fascinating that as this site gets more and more popular (look at the hit counter!) it’s getting to be seen as more and more of a threat by the AGW crowd – they used to ignore it completely.
Tomorrow the voting begins. Best Science Blog – 2 years running?
Mike recommended reading Surreal Climate. How did Gavin do last year? How’s he going to do this year?
crosspatch (18:01:49) :
Branson better not hear about this or he is going to be mightily upset with Rutan.
And that would mean what??
Branson needs Rutan. I don’t think it’s vice-versa.
“Galileo didn’t graduate from high school either.”
I was tempted to say “I knew Galileo and Branson is no Galileo” but lets say that in Galileo’s time nobody graduated from high school. Galileo was, however college educated and was a university academic:
If you were attempting to somehow imply that Galileo had no formal education, that would be intellectually dishonest. He had practically the best education that could be obtained at the time.
“mike roddy (16:16:25) :
Sorry, Burt, but your analysis is so absurd that I would be terrified to get in an airplane that you either flew or designed. “Those who want socialism”? Really? Who among the alarmists, pray tell, is that?”
Every last person who thinks that it is the government’s responsibility to control the energy supply of the country wants socialism. Fascism
Every last person who thinks forcing Americans into ever smaller and lighter cars is the governments duty wants socialism. Fascism
Every last person who thinks it is a good idea for the government to dictate what light bulbs a population is allowed use wants socialism. Fascism
Every last person who thinks that a good federal government activity is insulating the homes of home owners wants socialism. Fascism
Every last person who thinks that the government should be telling people where they are allowed to get energy from wants socialism. Fascism
It is pretty plainly clear that those who espouse the need to fight global warming are perfectly willing to do so at the expense of personal freedoms and the expansion of government by dictate.
yonason (19:33:52) :
The Sierra Club is the real danger to the earth and not coal.
It would mean the end of Spaceship 2. Branson is funding it. No funding, no program.
mike roddy : the problem with referring to the IPCC report while promoting AGW is that many people will compare that to someone stating that ‘communism works’ and instructing them to ‘read Das Kapital’ for proof.
In other words, few readers here believe in what the IPCC says. It’s a political organisation, not a scientific one.
It’s also true that terrified people act in a terrified manner. It’s quite typical for people caught up in mass delusion to talk about impending doom, but not to actually do anything about it. How many people scared of Y2K hysteria actually took all their money out of the bank, filled up their cupboards with tinned food and switched off all their appliances? I’m not sure of the reasons why people like to talk about being scared without doing anything, but perhaps it is seeking social acceptance or something.
People who know they are in the path of a Hurricane or a Fire don’t discuss and theorise how bad it is going to be, and talk about how scared they are, they just get in their cars and leave. Actions speak volumes about intentions.
mike roddy (16:16:25) :
Mike, I think these folks (in Copenhagen) want socialism, or even communism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN401-BFXOw
Not saying that most or all AGW proponents are of the same view, but to say none are is demonstrably incorrect.
OT
Arctic blast hitting China and Russia also, not just US and Britain:
Meteorologists predicted the freezing snap will last until at least mid-January…And the likelihood is that the second half of the month will be even colder…..heavy snow expected in northern England and Scotland…cold weather comes despite the Met Office’s long-range forecast, published in October, of a mild winter. That followed its earlier inaccurate prediction of a “barbecue summer”, which was marked by heavy rainfall and the wettest July for almost 100 years
http://www.theage.com.au/world/siberian-winds-usher-in-record-lows-in-beijing-20100103-lna6.html
Will January temps show a negative anomaly?
The biggest applause in Copenhagen came when Hugo Chavez gave his anti-capitalism “speech”.
Nuff said.
It’s refreshing to see when smart people who are trained in engineering/science actually take the time to look at what is being said by the AGW crowd that the conclusions that these smart people make are consistent. I just wish more people would listen to them. It’s quite ridiculous to believe the AGW crowd with all the variables they don’t account for, the models that don’t predict the future, and the paltry “evidence” they base their baseless conclusions on. When will the logical conclusion (that this trace gas isn’t causing and won’t cause huge problems) be recognized? AGW doesn’t pass scrutiny!
Temps in North Central US will be 10–40 degrees below average this week and cold will continue down to Texas and Florida over the next few days.
per The Weather Channel, 1/3/10
Oops…what that scraping noise?… could it be the bottom of the barrel? There are good arguments to present about the relative contributions of anthropogenic and natural warming. Giving space to this bogus nonsense undermines the validity of this site as a place for good scientific argument and turns it into an weak and transparent extension of FOX noise. It becomes a political platform rather than a serious look at the science. If you want to contribute (and it seems that you have) keep out of this nonsense. It feeds the prejudice of the ill-informed and may keep the punters happy but does nothing to do with working through this issue. I have looked at this site each day for the last 6 months, and found it thought provoking- even though I seldom agree. I am giving it a wide birth now as you seem to have made a clear choice to leave rational argument behind and “go gunboat”. What am I? Just one insignificant punter. You may have gained more “hits” but remember how you are judged by the company you keep. I will stick with Spencer, Christy and Michaels from now on.
Our time will be laughed at and despised by our descendants, if only for the fact that the most brilliant, most productive minds of our century had to spend their precious time explaining the obvious to the ignorant just because neither our filthy rich “statesmen” nor the obedient “scientists” paid by these politicians could resist a temptation of a profitable lie.
Burt Rutan deserves a monument.
Obama and other mobsters deserve tar and feathers.
Well, folks, I’m just so happy that Mike Roddy has stepped forward to put that Know-nothing, denialist engineer in his place!
/endsarc
Don’t feed the bloody trolls. If I tracked down the right site, Mike’s snail mail address is under the Bridge.
Looks like both Burt and Al gave TED talks in 2006:
Burt:
http://www.ted.com/talks/list/page/3
Al:
http://www.ted.com/talks/list/page/5
….version 2.0 provides ‘click through purchases of offsets’… (among other quotes)
I wonder if this was the occasion that Burt realized that something was going on in climate change?
When I first read his comment, I was going to point out to the obviously clueless mike roddy that Voyager; designed by Burt Rutan; hangs in a well-deserved prime spot at the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum for a reason. But enough WUWT regular readers have already done a pretty good job on mike roddy. Sooo:
Instead I’ll allow myself a moment to remember back many years and one of my visits to the Mojave Desert; when I got a 20-or-so minute ride in the LongEasy prototype with Burt Rutan’s brother Dick Rutan (who much later was of course one of the 2 Voyager pilots on the round-the-world trip).
Burt Rutan has proved many times over that he represents the best of American engineering, innovation, and applied science.
If anyone can convince Branson to see the light on AGW, it’s Burt Rutan.
Hmmm. . . .
If Branson could be convinced to publicly and even partially break with the Dark Side, THAT would be big news; that even the MSM would be hard put to totally ignore. Not holding my breath, but you never know. . . .
We do indeed live in interesting times. . . .
OT
Increased deaths in Peru from longer, harsher winters
…in the Peruvian Andes…months of sub-zero temperatures during the long winter. But, for the fourth year running, the cold came early….There have been warnings from meteorologists in Peru that this month will see the Huancavelica region hit by the worst weather conditions in years with plunging temperatures…Scores die every year from the cold, but in recent years the number of people succumbing to the freezing temperatures has triggered talk of a national crisis.This year the neighbouring district of Puno saw a severe spike in child mortality as the winter brought months of high winds and relentless ice storms. Government figures record that more than 300 children died in Puno in May last year from the cold; NGOs say that the figure was probably much higher…..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/03/peru-mountain-farmers-winter-cold
p.s. as we could guess since the article is from The Guardian the longer winters and deaths are attributed to global warming
David Kitchen (21:03:01) :
Which part of the Burt’s presentation/pdf do you find bogus nonsense?
I’m all for the site staying away from poor information and sticking to the facts as well. If some of the info is wrong, I’d like to read more on it to make up my mind.
David Kitchen (21:03:01) :
What is the bogus nonsense you are talking about?
Be specific.
3 attempts now at downloading the WUWT-hosted pdf file on 56K dial-up, file size reported as 5.2 MB.
EST time — how much downloaded
08:41PM — 3.3 MB
08:55PM — 3.4 MB
12:42AM — 3.7 MB
Three failures from here, while the 7.0 MB pdf from here of the 2009 Oshkosh Climate Change Presentation, listed along with the PowerPoint version, came through just fine on the first attempt.
*sigh*
David Kitchen (21:03:01)
Yes, what part of the presentation is bogus nonsense?
Failure to answer will demonstrate you are not serious (just a driveby AGW religionist).
Serious people answer direct questions forthrightly and with at least some specifics, the more the better, to back up their general statements (which is all you brought to the table).
I’ll come back to this post’s comment section to see if you ever followed up and responded (but I’m not holding my breath).
OT:
Over at Heresy Corner, a once-firm trust in settled science starts to waver and the author points out a nugget of information of which I wasn’t aware (maybe everyone else is):
“But you’ll have noticed the really amazing sentence in Paul’s defence of the Met Office. “We take the highest 15 readings between November and March and then produce an average.” They ignore, in other words, the lowest readings. This is a method almost certain to produce massive distortion. A warm November would fix a winter as “mild” even if the temperature in the subsequent three months averaged sixty degrees below zero. Which is almost, but not quite, what is likely to happen this winter.”
http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2010/01/however-cold-it-gets-this-is-officially.html#reply
Burt Rutan has real credibility, earned over a life time of real accomplishments in applied science, in a field where BS (bad science) gets people dead.
If I remember correctly Richard Branson was born very rich, Lots of money lets you hire brains to make you look good. You just have to be smart enough to know who to listen to.
Branson hired Rutan to create the biggest and most expensive “A” ticket roller coaster ride ever seen. I doubt Branson really cares about Burts’ views on CAGW.
artwest:
Oh holy crap! From the link you posted:
So the Met office simply takes the 15 warmest readings of the entire winter, averages them out, and makes that out to be the “average” temperature of the entire winter!
I hope that was someone simply being sarcastic and not REALLY someone who works for the Met Office. If that is what they are doing then it makes the Met Office an absolute laughing stock.
Of course that would explain a lot of their output. They aren’t producing an average of the winter temperature at all but simply producing an average of the 15 warmest days of the winter. That is complete and utter stupidity. In this case an average of the 15 coldest days would produce a different result. Why not an average of the actual average temperature of all days of the winter?
I can’t believe that comment is real. If it is, then the Met Office should be fired, the entire lot of them, for complete stupidity.
Ken,
Another Rutan partner was Paul Allen when they won the Ansari X prize in 2004. It would be real interesting to see someone with the financial resources of Paul Allen come out against AGW.
It’s only a matter of time before someone who ends up creating huge wealth, is also on the side of reason, science, capitalism, freedom, limited government, etc. and wants to use his/her wealth to vigorously defend those values.
Hopefully we all live to see that day soon.
kadaka (21:57:22) :
56K dial-up? Wow. I don’t know whether to laugh at you or feel sorry for you. Maybe if the industrialized countries were to pitch in we could get you some high speed internet…what do you think? Should we make you be our equal?
David Kitchen (21:03:01) :
Said: “FOX noise.”
His Leftism is showing. They just can not resist. They usually call it “Faux News” in their attempt at humor and degradation. They really hate freedom of the press.
David Kitchen (21:03:01) :
“I have looked at this site each day for the last 6 months, and found it thought provoking- even though I seldom agree. I am giving it a wide birth now as you seem to have made a clear choice to leave rational argument behind and “go gunboat”.”
It’s hard to argue with such an erudite statement as that. The WUWT readers will appreciate your wide berth but don’t really need the mental image of your wide birth.
Full disclosure; Burt Rutan is one of my innovative heroes.
Well done Burt Rutan. This presentation is one of the most persuasive summaries on the AGW “theory” I have read, leading one to conclude there’s a whole lot that the AGW people don’t want the public to know. It’s hard to imagine this AGW charade continuing for too many more years. The politicians that hitched their wagons to this boondoggle will pay a heavy price.
Thanks for the links to Burt’s talk Anthony. I was actually in attendance last August for the event. I was excited to hear the amazing Burt Rutan give a talk, and I expected it to be about his aeronautical exploits (this was Oshkosh, after all!). So imagine my surprise when he went on this amazingly well researche RANT about AGW. It was electrifying in person! Someone was finally saying the emperor’s clothes were missing. I’d been mildly suspicious of the whole AGW enterprise, thinking that it defied credulity that some climate scientists had adequately modeled earth’s chaotic climate, but had not personally looked into the subject. Mr. Rutan opened a lot of eyes that day, and I’m glad that he is continuing to. But his presentation was not accepted passively–there was some considerable push back from several in the crowd who found him to be a fire-breathing heretic. He stood his ground well.
Keep in mind this was well in advance of climategate.
What will stick most with me, and a line I have used quite a bit, was Burt’s point that IF we thought we could influence the earth’s climate, we certainly would want to be able to warm it, given that for most of it’s recent history the earth has been quite chilly, and hundreds of feet of ice sheet above Oshkosh is not healthy for children or other living things!
(not to mention that it would really really cramp the style of the fly in!)
The other very impressive point from Mr. Rutan was that, as an aeronautical engineer, he needs to be able to model behaviors with chaotic features, and he recognizes the vital need to make sure that his models are highly predictive in order to support his designs He also needs to understand the limits of his models’ abilities to predict. His study of the climate models left him speechless at their lack of ability to predict.
Burt’s presentation gave voice to my vague concerns and led me to look into the field in more depth–discovering WUWT and other refuges from the “settled” science. I came away equally speechless. As a practicing scientist, I’d been pretty appalled that there were people calling themselves scientists who were using the term “settled” or who were castigating skeptics as if it was a bad thing?! (I’m more skeptical of my own data than anyone–and proud of that fact–it’s the core of scientific inquiry–nothing is settled, and if you’re not skeptical, you will be sorry).
Of course then climategate erupted, and I’ve been stunned by the horrendous abuse by these so-called scientists. At my institution, I chair our committee on scientific integrity. I know scientific misconduct when I see it, and it’s present in spades in the released documents. It’s unfortunate, but all of us in the scientific enterprise are being tarred with these clowns’ brushes. It’s even more distressing to see the journals attempting to cover and deflect. Nature should be ashamed of publishing such garbage without primary data being available, but then to come out in support of these bozos?
My thanks to Burt for really opening my eyes to this pitiful chapter in the otherwise noble history of science and engineering. (and White Knight II was awfully cool, too!)
OT, tropopshere seems to be getting a huge amount of warming http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+002 The southern hemisphere must be getting a roasting while we’re freezing our arses off here in England.
Folks, not only is Burt Rutan a pretty good engineer (high praise in the engineering world) but he flat out has courage. He sat in the back seat of F4 Phantoms at Edwards while a civilian flight test engineer while the *unrecoverable* spin modes of the airplane were investigated. The aircraft were fitted with anti spin chutes so when the unrecoverable mode occurred the chute would be deployed to recover the aircraft. It isn’t unknown for anti spin chutes to fail to deploy ,tangle etc which leaves you with ejection aka “attempted suicide to avoid certain death.”
Not for this little black duck who has spun quite a few sailplanes, a couple of power planes and flown in Air force training jets.
“…) This is the site link, if anyone wants to wade thru it – nice caricatures tho.
http://www.buffalobeast.com/?p=1237&cpage=1#comment-214”
Thanks, I just passed through. Shan’t go back. Really vicious ad hom.
If Rutan and Monckton combined forces, they could make 100’s of Al Gore types run away crying for help and begging for forgiveness.
mike roddy (16:16:25) : Sorry, Burt, but […] I would be terrified to get in an airplane that you either flew or designed.
That kind of sums it up. Unwilling to fly in an airplane from what is one of if not THE best designer in the world. Oh, and how many other private designers have gone to space and back? And in a reusable ship too… Oh, and who made and airplane to fly non-stop around the world un-refueled?
Yup. Terrified of things from irrational fears…
I’d get in ANY Rutan design any day and be at peace.
(Though my favorite and what I’d “someday” love to own is the Quickie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rutan_quickie_q2.jpg
that looks fast sitting still and is minimalist poetry of design… almost a Hiku of composite design.)
gtrip (23:24:43) : 56K dial-up? Wow. I don’t know whether to laugh at you or feel sorry for you. Maybe if the industrialized countries were to pitch in we could get you some high speed internet…what do you think? Should we make you be our equal?
Um, some of us in the USA also use 56k dial-up. Often it is all that is available at ‘first bring up’ of sites (where I’ve often used it to download new software revs to load into the router that was not talking to the T1 … ) and it is usually configured as an alternative emergency link between routers when the leased lines go down. Most WANS I’ve installed had a 56 kb link for backup and for remote management.
Further, hotels do NOT all have high speed… and you don’t always get to choose your hotel. Heck, I’ve even used 9.6kb over my old Mot. Startac phone (a few years back) to check email from a rest stop in the middle of some god forsaken rest stop near / in New Mexico toward the Texas side. (Had to ‘roll my own’ config for it. At the time data over cell phones was not exactly a supported product…) Nearest “anything not sand” was many long miles away… but my Linux laptop and Startac got my email to me with nothing but battery power and country air.
Oh, and while I sometimes use the high speed, I also often use a 56 k dial up just to mutate my IP numbers. Especially on certain types of security contracts. For most things it is quite ‘livable’ (and more so when the kids are on the leased line and are downloading GB of “stuff” and one of their BFs is playing a live interactive video game and … “My Share” is often best served by a dedicated 56 kb.)
Frankly, other than pages crammed with a zillion pictures or video and the occasional “code bloat download”, I don’t mind it at all. (Then I usually DO hop on the leased line… or go get a Starbucks if the “kids” are being line hogs 😉 though a bit of ‘war driving’ can turn something up in most hotel rows or business parks these days… but I digress.)
Oh, and it is possible to gang them for higher parallel throughput, though I’ve not needed to do that.
So please, do not disparage the 56 kb line. It is the “network maintenance guys” life line most of the time. (Think about it… if ‘the network’ is broken how do you use the network to fix it?…)
crosspatch (15:43:55) : Most of Rutan’s money these days comes from Richard Branson. If Rutan came out anti-AGW, he company would collapse.
You don’t think Rutan has enough in the bank to do whatever he feels like doing? AFTER the X-prize??
The market for space tourism exists. Rutan has the means / vehicle.
Branson can not get to space without Rutan. Rutan can get to space without Branson… (though Branson lets Rutan build a bigger scale of ship ‘out the gate’). Heck, today Rutan could start selling rides if he wanted to do so and be self funding. Just more money faster if the two of them work together. Branson knows this, as does Rutan. But if “the deal” broke up, I’d rather be Rutan looking for folks wanting to buy a ride than Branson looking for “the other private space plane company” with a proven vehicle.
Both these guys can do whatever they want and neither of them is going to be worried about money the rest of their lives.
Interesting isn’t it, that people like David Kitchen and M Roddy, come along and decree “this is all nonsense,” spend several paragraphs repeating “this is all nonsense,” and yet without a single sentence of scientific rebuttal leaving their pens (or keyboards).
David Kitchen: “I am giving it a wide birth [berth?] now as you seem to have made a clear choice to leave rational argument behind and “go gunboat”.
We are still waiting for HIS rational argument as to why this is “all nonsense,” but I expect a long wait. Such behaviour is typical of those who know they have lost the argument, or more likely, had none to begin with. Oh well, at least it will show any newcomers to the site that the warmists have run out of arguments, and that alone is worth a thousand sceptics.
Richard Branson has turned out to be a bit of a disappointment, hasn’t he? When I read this Scarygraph article,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/6900494/Sir-Richard-Branson-we-need-a-low-carbon-world-capable-of-growth-otherwise-society-will-fall-apart.html
I was reminded that there were 5 foolish virgins, one of whom it seems is an entrepreneur who has somewhat lost the plot. Trim your wick Sir Richard and ensure you’ve brought enough non-biofuel oil to the party.
Its nice to see a hard-nosed common sense engineer like Burt Rutan tell us what he thinks and explain why. I actually think he may get through to people in ways Lord Monckton can’t.
artwest and crosspatch. Please don’t let that ‘Tony from Norwich’ nonsense go any further. I read that when it was on the original Daily Mail thread and it’s clear that ‘Tony’ was having a laugh at everyone’s expense. I would think it obvious that he doesn’t work for the Met Office at all, as he included November, when the Met Office only include Dec, Jan & Feb. And not even the MO would “take the 15 highest”!!!
I think it is instructive to see a renowned applied scientist address this issue.
OT
Vincent said: “Oh well, at least it will show any newcomers to the site that the warmists have run out of arguments, and that alone is worth a thousand sceptics.”
Absolutely. Nothing eventually convinced me of the implausibility of the CAGW hypothesis as strongly as reading realclimate did. If you dodge open debate and can’t give detailed answers to key questions, and instead end up censoring them, don’t expect people to trust you.
You can notice the same modus operandi everywhere, in the IPCC review-process with their arbitrary “rejected” comments with no explanations given, in the media that shun the difficult questions. It’s quite hard to explain.
” DirkH (16:05:01) :
We’re all engineering kinda persons and the project we’re in is subsidized by EU money.
Besides, developing these solutions is worthwhile nevertheless.”
Yes indeed, but here is the problem: When AGW theory finally falls apart in the public view, and the political system takes a bath at the polls, don’t expect any more money for these worthwhile projects.
For all the good reason for energy tech, to the politician they will be dead. The politicians *gough*algore*cough* never really understood the science anyway — and it’s debatable if anyone really did — so they will not be open to any REAL reason to continue funding such technology development.. for fear of looking stupid again.
AGW is going to set back energy development by 30 years.
12 part documentary on Burt Rutan and the development of SpaceShipOne
Absolutely amazing.
Stu (06:19:04) :
Thanks for posting this Stu. I had a mind to do it too. I think some people here don’t know who Burt Rutan is.
Good presentation with 2 weaknesses that unfortunately lessen credibility (if he got that wrong, what else is wrong). Fossil fuel reserves do not go up every decade, and declines of readily recoverable reserves have been hidden by reclassifying less available resources eg Canadian tar sands. The only evidence that Cap & Trade will make America less competitive is economic models that are about as reliable as climate models. The presentation is about global warming. Why introduce these inaccurate distractions?
AdderW (05:11:00) :
In a world growing ever hotter, Huancavelica is an anomaly.
The world is not growing hotter. It is cooling now. This is why it’s colder in Peru.
The link goes to The Guardian. And as you could expect The Guardian puts a far left spin on the story.
@David Kitchen. “give this site a wide birth”?? Too late, it’s already born. Perhaps you meant “wide berth”, which is probably wise if you intend to flounce off to other sites.
I see the AGW’er are in the same camp as Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chavez and that Iran-guy.
And I am int the same camp as Burt Rutan!!!
I just love that guy. Makes anything out of nothing.
Warms my heart.
@Mike Roddy
You are obviously well versed in the 25 rules of disinformation, several of which can be detected flying about your post like popcorn.
You obviously don’t know or care who Burt Rutan is. He is a world class aviation engineer.
Here is a partial list of his designs, four of which are on display at the National Air and Space Museum.
27 VariViggen
32 VariViggen SP
31 VariEze
33 VariEze (Presently on display at the National Air and Space Museum)
35 Ames AD-1
49 Quickie
61 Long-EZ
68 Amsoil Biplane Racer
72 Grizzly
76 Voyager (Presently on display at the National Air and Space Museum.
77 Solitaire
81 Catbird
91 Lotus Microlight
115 Beech Starship POC
133 ATTT
143 Triumph
144 CM-44
151 ARES
Pond Racer
202 Boomerang
281 Proteus
He obtained world fame with SpaceShipOne, the first privately funded spacecraft to complete a test flight into outer space in 2004. (Presently on display at the National Air and Space Museum)
Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer (Presently on display at the National Air and Space Museum)
SpaceShipTwo (in design stage)
White Knight Two (testing stage)
Don’t you think that a person who designed the above aircraft is intelligent enough to have a very good understanding of climatology after having studied it? I do.
I believe that Richard Branson is dyslexic. I also repect the man enormously and I suspect that Rutan is coming from the same angle. Lastly, believe nothing you read in the public media particularly when it in the nature of a personal, person’s opinion.
Mike Roddy
You said “but please do not put together Power Point presentations on a subject about which you know nothing.”
Perhaps you should tell that to Al Gore.
BTW Burt Rutan is an engineering genius. His knowledge of science is way beyond Al Gore who has no education in science.
@ E.M.Smith (01:52:03) :
9600 baud? My first modem, Wang, for my first PC, a 386. 15 minutes to download a photo. Fun times.
Used a workhorse self-assembled P2, WinME with Norton Utilities just keeping it running. Used two different brand-name P3’s, but with on-board video they actually ran slower, no BIOS provisions for decisively turning it off and letting a video card handle the load. Never bothered with XP, too virus-prone. 56K seemed as fast as it could take, and I didn’t like what I was hearing about viruses and high-speed. Plus there were sites that spawned endless pop-ups until I physically pulled the phone line. If I was on high-speed..
Now I have a used P4 Dell, Debian Linux (needed an OS), with external modem to avoid internal “Win-modems” that may need proprietary drivers, if they would work at all. My ISP does have DSL, and while their site insists I need Windows their tech support says of course it will work with Linux.
But I want to be a whole lot better at Linux before I try getting that set up and running. Better to be patient for now and wait until I know my system, than get stuck with “emergency dial-up” hoping someone can fix it.
Burt put guys in space man. He is a guy who will go down in history as an engineering genius. Rick Branson won’t ignore what Rutan has said because he knows just how switched on the fellow is.
Now is it just me or has it been said elsewhere but . . . the CRU crew bent their numbers so they agree with GISS and NOAA. That being the case aren’t the other numbers bent too?
Jeff B. @ 22:51 (hi, Jeff) correctly points out that Burt Rutan was also closely associated Paul Allen. Paul Allen is in some ways a ”one of a kind” guy; don’t know if he could also ever be convinced to see the light and say so publicly; but; yeah: You’re right; that would be huge.
SIDEBAR: Excellent comments by GeneDoc @ 00:19 and toyotawhizguy @ 08:11. . . . Actually, a lot of good comments by many WUWT regular readers.
While we should never underestimate the willingness of the politically-correct AGW faithful and their allies in the MSM to continue to blindly push their mantra regardless of continually mounting evidence to the contrary and the worst of the ClimageGate scandal (and, of course: Follow the money):
I let myself be guardedly optomistic that rational skeptics around the world continue to gain ground. If we’re not at critical mass yet, it feels like we’re getting close.
Also recall something Carl Sagan said on TV and in the many books he wrote:
There is a strange tendency and even eagerness for masses of people and many of their leaders to engage in a ”willing suspension of disbelief and critical thinking”. Especially since ClimateGate broke, the high priests of AGW and their legions of accolytes have more and more taken on some of the classic attributes of not just a religion but a cult (or maybe the medival Inquisition):
No deviation from the approved party line is tolerated; all who dare to do so shall be (at least figuratively speaking, in the modern era) burned at the stake, regardless of logic, reason, and evidence.
FOOTNOTE, again in the ”weather is not climate, but eventually it starts to matter” department:
Just in on cable news:
Record low temperatures and record snow fall in and around Beijing.
On the first video at the end where he is talking about ‘peak oil’ he mentions that the Bakken play in Montana, North Dakota and southern Canada has more reserves than Saudia Arabia, this is somewhat misleading. The Bakken is estimated by some to have upwards of 500 bbl; this is reserve/potential not recoverable. Recoverable oil in the Bakken has been estimated by the USGS to only be 4-5 bbl a significant difference. Saudi Arabia has 267 bbl of oil and that is recoverable oil.
When a person talks about oil/gas reserves it is disingenuous to speak of total reserves and not revoverable. If you can’t recover it it is of no value. Between the Bakken, Green River oil shales and reworking of older fields (as technology for recovery/production increases) the US has some of the highest petroleum reserves on the planet, but if you can’t get it you can’t use it. It is always interesting to see people fudge information to support their crusades.
Now don’t get me wrong, as a former geologist, I am all for producing as much energy domestically as we can. It is good business – keeps Americans working and stimulates the economy. I just hate half truths from anyone left or right.
Scipio
Ok I’ve listened. He produced data from sources that I have already seen and presented badly in the most awful ambiance.
I say that as a former professional presenter. That doesn’t means that what he said was wrong as Mr Kitchen said here. He didn’t prepare very well, I suspect, and didn’t rehearse and under those circumstances he did brilliantly.
Thanks to Anthony for bringing it to our attention.
Rutan is both an engineering genius *and* an old school environmentalist…That is, a pre-dogma environmentalists ,who did it because he thought it was a good idea, not because he thought the green-gods would punish him if he didn’t…
Mr. Kitchens and Mr. Roddy are clearly dogmatists.. They “believe in science” and don’t realize that there is no such thing as “believing in” real science… It is cold and factual, and *always* embraces the presupposition that it may easily be wrong at any given moment…
Green Movement zealots’ science has been proven wrong more times than anyone can count anymore, but that is irrelevant to them “the science is settled”…Because it never was science, as science is NEVER settled… They are a religion that has perverted science to reinforce the same Utopian vision that myriad others have tried before at the end of a spear…
Mr. Rutan is correct and proves it, and that really annoys the cult of the left…
mike roddy (16:16:25)
“I would be terrified to get in an airplane that you either flew or designed.”
Really?
* Aviation Week & Space Technology “Laural Legend” award (2002)
* Aviation Week & Space Technology Hall of Fame (2002)
* Aviation Week & Space Technology Current Achievement Award (2005)
* Collier Trophy for ingenious design and development of the Voyager and skillful execution of the first non-stop, non-refueled flight around the world (1987) and for designing and launching the first commercial manned launch vehicle SpaceShipOne (2004)
* Design News Engineer of the Year (1988)
* EAA Outstanding New Design (1975, 1976 and 1978)
* EAA Freedom of Flight Award, (1996)
* Engineers Council Clarence L. “Kelly” Johnson “Skunk Works” award (2000)
* Grand Medal of the Aero Club of France (1987)
* International Aerospace Hall of Fame (1988)
* SETP James H. Doolittle Award (1987 and 2004)
* Lindbergh Foundation, Lindbergh Award (2000)
* National Aviation Hall of Fame (1995)
* National Medal of the Aero Club of France (1987)
* Professional Pilot Magazine, Designer of the Year, (1999)
* Royal Aeronautical Society, British Gold Medal for Aeronautics (1987)
* SAMPE George Lubin Award, (1995)
* Scientific American Business Leader in Aerospace (2003)
* Time Magazine “100 Most Influential People of the World” (April 18, 2005)
* Western Reserve Aviation Hall of Fame, Meritorious Service Award (1988)
* National Model Aviation Museum Hall of Fame (2006)
Thanks for the 12 part link Stu, Amazing!!!
On the recoverable oil issue:
It is true that there is a difference between recoverable resources and total resources. However, it is also true that unrecoverable is an economic term. Both price and technology change this. Just look at the shale gas resources now “recoverable” in the US. We have used more fossil fuels since the 1970s than existed as recoverable resources in the 1970s.
Toyotawhizguy: “Don’t you think that a person who designed the above aircraft is intelligent enough to have a very good understanding of climatology after having studied it?”
Argument from false authority. Just because someone is an authority in one field does not make them an authority in another.
Bert Rutan may well be a brilliant aeronautical engineer. That fact does not make him an expert on climate science.
REPLY: following your logic then…
James Hansen – astronomer, mathematician
Al Gore – divinity school student, politician
Tim Flannery – Author, naturalist
Bill McKibben – author, activist
Please lodge your complaint against them here to demonstrate your unbiased view of who is an “expert” and should be listened to or not. – A
@ Scipio:
The distribution of the Bakken play extends into Canada as well and that is not part of the USGS 2008 estimates. The distribution total, if even across the regions of Canada and the US may well get up towards 400 billion plus…
Also though I do see your point, the “recoverability” rating is based on *current production technology*, whereas the context of this statement is a man who *really made* a space ship with limited funds that no government on earth was able to…
If you go by the raw numbers, and are considering that innovation is this man’s life…It is an accurate statement…
crosspatch (15:43:55) :
“Most of Rutan’s money these days comes from Richard Branson. If Rutan came out anti-AGW, he company would collapse.”
Yeah, AGW is serious religion in Britain.
@ Brendan H
To say what you appear to be trying to say would have to totally ignore the fact that in every segment of this lecture, the man shows the real undisputed numbers, the accurate numbers, the agreed number and the full datasets, rather than extrapolated ones…
Did you even watch it?
Anthony: “REPLY: following your logic then…
James Hansen – astronomer, mathematician
Al Gore – divinity school student, politician
Tim Flannery – Author, naturalist
Bill McKibben – author, activist…”
The last three, yes. The first, no. Why? Because Hansen has spent 30 years practising climate science. That gives him a degree of authority that the others lack, including, of course, Bert Rutan.
TheAnticrat: “To say what you appear to be trying to say would have to totally ignore the fact that in every segment of this lecture, the man shows the real undisputed numbers, the accurate numbers, the agreed number and the full datasets, rather than extrapolated ones…”
I’m not arguing that point. I’m addressing this claim: “Don’t you think that a person who designed the above aircraft is intelligent enough to have a very good understanding of climatology after having studied it?”
The claim here is that expertise in one field confers expertise in another. That’s an argument from false authority. Bert Rutan may have an in-depth grasp of climate science and may have blown away AGW with his presentation. Regardless, his expertise in aeronautical engineering does not confer expertise in climate science.
mike roddy (16:16:25) :
“Sorry, Burt, but your analysis is so absurd that I would be terrified to get in an airplane that you either flew or designed.”
All his planes fly really well and that is a consequence of his skill and analysis, and what affect would it have if he flew it? How are the AGW climate models doing by the way?
If you judge his analysis to be bad and therefore his planes are bad, but in reality they actually fly quite well then what is wrong? Burt’s analysis or your assessment?
@ Brendan H
So you are postulating that the person who created, built, and flew an airplane that traveled entirely around the world on one tank of gas using atmospheric gasses has less of a grasp on atmospheric gasses than a fat politician who’s major contribution to the world before his mysterious genius on climate was warning labels on Twisted Sister records?
Just checking….
Do you understand what field he works in …? …Because he works *directly* with the medium that all of this is about… Intimately…
Forgive my poor grammar / spelling in that last one… *whose
The problem is that based on our current understanding of chaos theory there can NEVER exist “expertise” on climate science. Unless you believe that climate is not chaotic. Then all we are left with is people looking at the past and attempting to predict the future. So far they have done a miserable job. And it also appears some have not always been honest in their pursuits.
Rutan is unquestionably an expert in control theory and its practical application. The application of this to past climate is what interests me since it goes to the heart of the IPCC GCMs.
Brendan H: If in an argument it’s more important to you what degrees the people have and not what they have to say then you’re not constructive at all and thus your posts are pretty much worthless.
Brendan H (13:48:03) :
The last three, yes. The first, no. Why? Because Hansen has spent 30 years practising climate science. That gives him a degree of authority that the others lack, including, of course, Bert Rutan.
When I think of certain things a person can “practice” for thirty years, and no one else would dare to call them an “authority” on the subject, especially themselves…
Thirty years of “bachelor cooking” will not make you a chef. Thirty years of cranking out junk science, well, that doesn’t even make you an authority on junk science, especially when you refuse to even consider that you have been making junk.
By your logic, I became an authority of producing what I release into the toilet ages ago. Now how do I make money off of it? Surely I am qualified for employment in related medical research, since I am an authority!
TheAnticrat: “So you are postulating that the person who created, built, and flew an airplane that traveled entirely around the world on one tank of gas using atmospheric gasses has less of a grasp on atmospheric gasses than a fat politician…”
I don’t remember claiming that Bert Rutan has less of an understanding of the atmosphere than a fat politician. You may like to support your claim.
?: “Brendan H: If in an argument it’s more important to you what degrees the people have and not what they have to say then you’re not constructive at all and thus your posts are pretty much worthless.”
I am pointing out that an argument from false authority is a logical fallacy. If you can support the validity of an argument from false authority, I’m all ears.
@ Brendan H
I appreciate the attempts at junior college legalisms supported with Sting-esque allusions at Aristotelian logic and all…
…But you seem to be trying to take issues with the “lesser people” that are commenting more than anything else, and that is a sure sign of someone who likes talking, but has nothing to say…
I got our “support” …right here… (Better?) =D
Brendan H:
“I am pointing out that an argument from false authority is a logical fallacy.”
Who is the arbiter of your ‘authority?’ The dishonest alarmists who connived to blackball a professional journal, simply for having the temerity to publish a paper skeptical of AGW? The same alarmists who connived to get a colleague fired simply because he had a different point of view? Are they the ‘authority’ you’re referring to?
You add: “If you can support the validity of an argument from false authority, I’m all ears.”
OK, let’s take the false authority – your definition – of Richard Branson, who holds an actual high school degree, and who states that AGW is an indisputable fact, which will cause the deaths of millions.
Since Branson is a false authority, any arguments you make supporting Branson’s beliefs are false.
But suppose an argument comes from a false authority, like Branson’s, and an identical argument comes from a conniving scientist like Hokey Stick Mann? Is one argument right, and the other wrong? How can that be? Or are they both right, making your ‘false authority’ argument silly?
That’s why I prefer to focus on empirical [real world, unadjusted] facts, rather than word games. The Earth is telling anyone who is willing to listen that the CO2=CAGW conjecture is false. Since you’re all ears, listen to what mother Earth is telling you, rather than your crooked scientist ‘authorities’.
Thanks for the kudos Methow Ken.
On authority. It’s usually helpful to have smart people who aren’t “schooled” in a topic review the data and conclusions since they bring a different set of perspectives (and biases) to the task. Often, those who are the acknowledged “experts” can be subsumed in the groupthink that can develop in a close (or closed) field. That seems to have been the case with the AGW team, even to the point of a rather paranoid view of outsiders as being out to knock them off their roost.
It’s best if a scientist can remain dispassionate about his/her research–and it can be quite fatal to become too emotionally attached to a particular hypothesis. Remember, the aim is to try to disprove the hypothesis, which is why good ones are those that can be tested. Alas, in “climate science” as with many non-experimental scientific subjects, experiments are not possible. As in other fields that are observational and predictive, rather than experimental (paleoanthropology comes screaming to mind), the investigator is often seduced by the hypothesis, and is tempted not to work toward its demise, and instead begins to defend it vigorously. This often leads to very nasty personal conflicts as each investigator passionately defends his/her pet theory. It seems that fields with the least data have the biggest battles. And when the temptation to support the pet hypothesis leads to manipulating the data to fit the theory…the investigator has committed a sin that is unpardonable in science. Pride is tolerable, but data fabrication or falsification are not.
Sadly, my reading of the emails and other data from HadCru and Mann (thanks to Anthony and many others) is that these groups have engaged in falsification. I suspect that institutional inquiries will come to the same conclusion. It may be “human nature” but it’s still inexcusable behavior in any scientific endeavor. Here the only consequence is causing global anxiety and potentially huge economic consequences. In Mr. Rutan’s world, people might die directly from his bad designs if he were “fudging the data”.
I think it’s been said a few times already, but what Burt Rutan brings to the arena is an rigorous (statistically supported!) engineer’s perspective on modeling processes, with a particular eye on systems with chaotic features. He deals with predictions that he can test (e.g. in flight, in a wind tunnel) and tune, so it’s different from climate models that can only hope to predict past or future events. But he has loads of experience in the process that is quite relevant, even if his immersion in the nuances of the climate cognoscenti is incomplete. I, for one, value his input immensely.
I’d be very curious to hear how he reacted to the data dump–especially the infamous Harry_Read_Me document.
TheAnticrat: “I got our “support” …right here… (Better?) =D”
Hmmm. You seem to be talking in some type of personal code, so I’ll have to pass on this one.
Smokey: “Who is the arbiter of your ‘authority?’”
It’s not so much a matter of “who” as “what”. People who have practised in a particular field have more knowledge, and therefore authority, in that field than those who have little or no experience.
“Since Branson is a false authority, any arguments you make supporting Branson’s beliefs are false.”
No. Notice that I referred to the “validity” of an argument from false authority. The argument from false authority is a logical fallacy, ie it relates to the form, not the content of an argument.
Richard Branson or Bert Rutan may be 100 per cent accurate on their climate claims. Nevertheless, the content of their claims would be irrelevant to the argument from false authority, which is: expertise in one field confers expertise in another. This argument is logically invalid, and it’s easy to see why:
Branson/Rutan have expertise in aviation; therefore, they have expertise in climate science.
The conclusion is, of course, a non-sequitur. Why is this important? Because the layman who has little time or expertise needs to be able to distinguish between wannabes and real authorities on a subject.
“But suppose an argument comes from a false authority, like Branson’s, and an identical argument comes from a conniving scientist like Hokey Stick Mann?”
If Branson were to make an identical argument to Michael Mann’s, Branson’s argument could gain no authority from his aviation expertise, only by reference to the authority of the scientist. In this respect, you will remember a court case where Al Gore’s documentary was subject to investigation, and the arbiter of accuracy was the science.
Brendan H,
*sigh*
I guess I’ll have to repeat my conclusion, which is the central fact in the entire AGW debate — and which you completely avoided mentioning:
When you don’t have the facts, argue arguing instead.
i think you guys are being a little harsh on brendan as i think he sort of agrees that global warming has been a hoax. However i think he is missing the point about rutan’s qualifications. You do not have to be a climate scientist to look at the statistical data and see that it has been manipulated by the IPCC. Rutan is obviously very good at statistics and using the raw data can tell the global warming (or climate change or whatever the hell they are calling it now) is not happening or at least man made global warming.
Furthermore, he has read the disastourous markey waxman bill and describes how the process works it getting these permits as well as some of the insane demands such as having someone come into your house if you are going to sell it to determine if the appliances are up to date. Not to mention some of the crazy stuff the UN wants such as an international identity card to determine how much carbon usage a person has used.
Rutan’s report blew me away because I just finished correcting Aono/Amoto 1994 Kyoto climate reconstruction to 1000 AD by adjusting it for time shift caused by Gregorian calendar conversion error. When I saw the long term European climate graph in his report my jaw dropped open. I pasted it into my correction document to be certain I was comparing properly. Posted it here http://knowledgedrift.wordpress.com/
By eliminating the calendar conversion error the Kyoto cherry blossom reconstruction ceases to support the recent IPCC reports and matches precisely with the 1990 IPCC climate reconstruction.
Smokey: “I guess I’ll have to repeat my conclusion…”
Happy for you to repeat your conclusion, Smokey. I merely note that it has nothing at all to do with my argument.
Robert: “i think you guys are being a little harsh on brendan as i think he sort of agrees that global warming has been a hoax.”
Neither agrees nor “sort of” agrees.
“You do not have to be a climate scientist to look at the statistical data…”
Of course not, and neither have I made any claim to the contrary. My arguments have addressed this claim: “Don’t you think that a person who designed the above aircraft is intelligent enough to have a very good understanding of climatology after having studied it?”
This is an argument from false authority. It makes no difference how well or badly informed Rutan or anyone else may be. It wouldn’t matter if you substituted Hansen, Gore or Pope Benedict for Rutan. The argument would remain a fallacy.
Brendan H,
Great! Then we can both agree: you win your authority argument, and the Earth wins the CO2≠AGW argument. Win-win!
Now, let’s just forget about spending any more taxpayer money on that dishonest, falsified scam of an AGW conjecture.
Brendan H,
Is it your position then that all appeals to authority are fallacious?
TheAntiCrat (10:56:55) :
Rutan is both an engineering genius *and* an old school environmentalist…That is, a pre-dogma environmentalists ,who did it because he thought it was a good idea, not because he thought the green-gods would punish him if he didn’t…
Mr. Kitchens and Mr. Roddy are clearly dogmatists.. They “believe in science” and don’t realize that there is no such thing as “believing in” real science… It is cold and factual, and *always* embraces the presupposition that it may easily be wrong at any given moment…
Green Movement zealots’ science has been proven wrong more times than anyone can count anymore, but that is irrelevant to them “the science is settled”…Because it never was science, as science is NEVER settled… They are a religion that has perverted science to reinforce the same Utopian vision that myriad others have tried before at the end of a spear…
Mr. Rutan is correct and proves it, and that really annoys the cult of the left…
Your being too kind, – not religion, – instead a superstition…
Using only the relevant authorities in various fields in support of AGW theory seems fine until you see that the AGW supporters and scientists themselves only apply the standard when and if it suits them. The example I’m thinking of is- since AGW theory relies heavily on statistics, then why have climatologists so far been extremely hesitant in interacting with the larger statistical community? Steve M’s and others’ work has been so far shown to be important in its revealing of errors in many paleo reconstructions, and yet these people are still shunned and ignored by climatologists. But these same people know their statistics! Why then does the ever repeated appeal to authority argument simply disappear whenever the answers given by those in actual authority (in this case, statistics) go against AGW?
If Steve M and others can contribute to the scientific process as experts in their related field then what’s the problem? Even the scientific journals seem terrified of these people and their expertise. Which suggests that this is not really about authority at all but simply about being on the right side. This all translates down and crosses wires somehow and somewhere to allow people to be turned into ‘authorities’ simply if they are in agreement with the theory.
Or as the media and even the journals (sadly) have framed it – the difference between ‘scientists and deniers’.
Mike Roddy suggests what is presumably the pro-AGW 2008 book Six Degrees by Mark Lynas (not to be confused with the brilliant 2004 book of the SAME NAME, unrelated to climate, by Duncan Watts). The Lynas book, a favorite of Al Gore’s “presenters” (or whatever they call the unhappy remnants of the Inconvenient Truth crowd) is gorged with the usual outdated and refuted arguments – much as Gore himself is. But it is most remarkable for its lack of any organization. You would think that a book with chapters “One Degree”, “Two Degrees”,…”Six Degrees” would have to have some automatic structure. Instead it seems to be a poorly argued, science-free, random assemblage of mostly anecdotal, and too often, embarrassing comments.
Genedoc said “It’s usually helpful to have smart people who aren’t “schooled” in a topic review the data and conclusions since they bring a different set of perspectives (and biases) to the task”
I agree completely. A few decades ago a college dropout inventor/businessman overthrew the most cherished theories on vision. Edwin Land, inventor and founder of Polaroid, showed enormous problems in the then prevalent theories of color vision. He had a totally different approach. His interest was in producing photographic films that most accurately reproduced the sensations of color produced by the real world.
English vision expert Richard L. Gregory tells the story in “Eye and Brain” which is still in print. He refers to Land as “the American inventive genius” even though some of the ideas that Land skewered were held by Gregory. Gregory, unlike many modern climatologists, is a true scientist, that is one who is more interested in the truth than anything else.
Even though there are some errors in Rutan’s presentation it is his basic approach that makes his criticisms worth considering. For Rutan it is always “What is the data trying to tell me?” His background in control systems operating in non-linear, chaotic environments gives him a very different perspective than that of climatologists.
Rutan is the engineer’s engineer. He shows by example what engineering is supposed to be.
Smokey: “Great! Then we can both agree: you win your authority argument, and the Earth wins the CO2≠AGW argument. Win-win!”
If I win the authority argument, you lose the CO2≠AGW argument. I can live with that.
sartec: “Brendan H, Is it your position then that all appeals to authority are fallacious?”
This is one reason why I tend to be sceptical about the quality of climate scepticism. Appeals to authority are fine, and in fact indispensible. Appeals to false authority are a logical fallacy.
Brendan H (19:56:01) :
“My arguments have addressed this claim: “Don’t you think that a person who designed the above aircraft is intelligent enough to have a very good understanding of climatology after having studied it?”
This is an argument from false authority. ”
No, it isn’t. It is a statement about intelligence.
Brendan H (22:32:59) :
“Appeals to authority are fine, and in fact indispensible.”
Actually they are logical fallacies.
I notice at this late date, that Roddy has not been back to answer his critics and detractor. Evidently his gang-banger, drive-by character is too feeble to engage in REAL SCIENCE.
Saw a show a few nights back, originally filmed in the late 1980s’, titled “The Fatal Attraction of Adolph Hitler”. A few of the interviewees were former HitlerJugen being asked, essentially, “What the hell was wrong with you?”. The answers were chillingly similar to the mentality we see now in folks like Roddy and at RC.
At the same time, I just finished re-reading William Manchester’s “A World Lit Only By Fire”, about the Middle Ages and the churches. Those high-priests refered to any one questioning church dogma as “upstarts”.
Alas, history repeats itself.
“Glenn (22:40:26) :
No, it isn’t. It is a statement about intelligence.”
Yes. You don’t need to be anything specifically except intelligent and somewhat familiar with data analysis (of which Burt Rutan is obviously both, to the highest degree) to realise that what the data is saying and what the accompanying official narrative often proclaims are two different things.
Glenn: “No, it isn’t. It is a statement about intelligence.”
Not the way I read it, and nor by the context of the quote. The statement is preceded by a list of accomplishments, clearly intended to establish expertise.
“Actually they are logical fallacies.”
Not if the authority has a legitimate claim to expertise:
http://www.skepdic.com/authorty.html
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#authority
crosspatch
“Branson is a very successful businessman but having a nose for business is not a substitute for education. As far as I know, Branson never graduated from high school.”
How about John Harrison (longitude)? A carpenter who taught himself how clocks work.
It doesn’t matter what one is trained in, as it is possible to be accomplished in anything, formally or informally. In the case of John Harrison it would seem that there were those who didn’t think a joiner was capable of solving a problem like longitude while at the same time making improvements to general clock design.
There is a certain mindset that will become accomplished regardless of education, and it is those that can teach themselves.
************************************
TheAntiCrat said:
Also though I do see your point, the “recoverability” rating is based on *current production technology*, whereas the context of this statement is a man who *really made* a space ship with limited funds that no government on earth was able to…
If you go by the raw numbers, and are considering that innovation is this man’s life…It is an accurate statement…
************************************
Because he built a plane that reached the fringes of space does not make him an expert on petroleum resources and his statement regarding the Bakken reserves is blatantly incorrect.
Scipio (05:53:18)
I’m not a geologist, but I sleep next to one who’s of the petroleum type who has made some significant contributions to technology and is currently making major discoveries in shale gas.
As I understand it, the Canadian tar sands have bounced between recoverable and not for the last year as the market price for oil changes. It’s all about the economics. And the technology–when a deposit becomes recoverable is dependent on the cost and the development of methods for extraction. For example, the in situ liquefaction methods, if perfected, may make previously unrecoverable formations highly productive.
@Brendan H
Well I didn’t mean to confuse you… What I am trying to say is that you are an arrogant pseudo-intellectual (as in “fake”) who is simply trying to lord over people… Hope that helps…
@ Scipio
I just pointed out how he was actually correct… and I don’t think you read it… You are using a different interpretation than he is based on limited USGS data and a standard that he is not… It is true, sure, if you fill in the blanks , which he did not… You did that, not him…
It had nothing to do with him building a plane… as I said… INNOVATION…. I didn’t say ” huh…he built a purdy plane…so he knows ’bout them there rocks too…” now did I?
You guys are using two different yard sticks… That doesn’t make yours correct and his incorrect… In fact yours is just as wrong from his perspective…
Kadaka: “Thirty years of “bachelor cooking” will not make you a chef.”
No, although it makes you an expert on bachelor cooking. Your negative opinion of the experts in no way affects the argument that experience confers authority, as long as the authority is generally recognised.
TheAnticrat: “@Brendan H
Well I didn’t mean to confuse you… What I am trying to say is that you are an arrogant pseudo-intellectual (as in “fake”) who is simply trying to lord over people… Hope that helps…”
Thanks for the clarification. Still not sure what brought on the outburst, but I now understand your resentment and to some degree empathise with it. I’m not saying that I agree with your position, but I have a genuine desire that people should try to get along, even when they passionately disagree on important subjects.
Brendan H (12:53:29) :
Kadaka: “Thirty years of “bachelor cooking” will not make you a chef.”
“No, although it makes you an expert on bachelor cooking.”
No, it doesn’t. No more than being an idiot for thirty years makes one an expert on idiocy.
“Your negative opinion of the experts in no way affects the argument that experience confers authority, as long as the authority is generally recognised.”
Being an “authority” does not mean what you say is true, Brendan. An argument from authority is a logical fallacy, period.
Glenn: “Being an “authority” does not mean what you say is true, Brendan.”
I didn’t say it did. What I have said is that people who have practised in a particular field have more knowledge, and therefore authority, in that field than those who have little or no experience.
Brendan H (14:08:04) :
Glenn: “Being an “authority” does not mean what you say is true, Brendan.”
“I didn’t say it did. What I have said is that people who have practised in a particular field have more knowledge, and therefore authority, in that field than those who have little or no experience.”
Not necessarily true. Knowledge and experience are not the same. There is little justification for the claim that those with knowledge of a subject are less informed than those who “practice”.
And you *have* said in so many words that being an authority means what you say is true, since you reject arguments from authority as being logical fallacies.
Stephen Skinner (05:13:20) :
crosspatch
“Branson is a very successful businessman but having a nose for business is not a substitute for education. As far as I know, Branson never graduated from high school.”
How about John Harrison (longitude)? A carpenter who taught himself how clocks work.
It doesn’t matter what one is trained in, as it is possible to be accomplished in anything, formally or informally. In the case of John Harrison it would seem that there were those who didn’t think a joiner was capable of solving a problem like longitude while at the same time making improvements to general clock design.
There is a certain mindset that will become accomplished regardless of education, and it is those that can teach themselves.
—…—…
And the head of the British Royal Society deliberately and with malice of forethought worked for twenty YEARS to deny him the money and recognition that he had earned by building several working versions of the chronometer – thereby “solving” the longitude problem and allowing the world to be navigated safely.
Notice that the “head of the ROyal Society” had a personal and financial interest in HIS method of calculating position by the phases of the moon and the occultation of various stars as the moon passed overhead.
Not that we see any conflict of interest or “professional reputations” being at risk by the truth and some honest research into AGW theories, do we?
An “expert” who is lying and manipulating data CANNOT be used as a reference or a source. No what his (or her) “claims” to be the “expert” in that field, a person who is exgerating and propagandizing about his or her favorite theories and favorite solutions CANNOT be relied upon. And we see dozens (if not hundreds) of examples of today’s “scientists” in all different fields of research faking data and lying about theories to advance an agenda. Gun control? Child development and teaching? Medicine? Ecology? Extinctions? Global Warming? etc. All have had numerous “directed research” exposed as fraudulent.
@Brendan H.
I may be wrong, but I’d bet a dollar you’re young and not out of school yet. As for Burt, if he told me pigs could fly (probably with a canard), I’d believe him, but that doesn’t mean you should. On the other hand, Burt stated his bias up front, and you have to admit that’s far more than you’re likely get from the Hadley Hockey Team.
Glenn: “There is little justification for the claim that those with knowledge of a subject are less informed than those who “practice”.”
I think there is. Those who practise are more inclined to interact with others in the same and related fields, thus picking up knowledge often denied to the amateur. And there’s no substitute for learning by doing.
“And you *have* said in so many words that being an authority means what you say is true, since you reject arguments from authority as being logical fallacies.”
That’s argument from false authority. Otherwise, no. A logical fallacy relates to the form, not the content, of an argument. A fallacious argument is not necessarily untrue, eg “I may be wrong, but I’d bet a dollar you’re young and not out of school yet,” when addressed to a schoolboy.
Sartec: “I may be wrong, but I’d bet a dollar you’re young and not out of school yet.”
A dollar? Now that’s confidence.
There is nothing I can add that you cannot read or have access to if you are interested. Here is what I suggest. If we get ill and need some surgery, I will go to the guy who has studied it for years, and you can go to the intelligent engineer who studied up on the internet and read a few books. Sound like a great idea? Science is about knowledge, this entry is about the abuse of knowledge. Not this site (always) which is why I complained… look at the two entries today (5th) these are great topics for discussion and very relevant. This is what contributes… and if you cannot see the difference, I do not intend to waste my time.
‘Science’ becomes worrisome when a consensus becomes revealed truth. Science advances only in the hurly burly of competing hypotheses. Scientific consensus has a habit of being overthrown by a few men stemming the tide – heliocentrism vs Copernicus; Puerperal fever vs Semmelweiss; Eugenics vs common sense; Miasma vs John Snow and the Broad Street pump. When consensus silences disagreement, it has become religion.
@dekitchen
Chaos theory was developed based on study of the earth’s climate in the 1960s. Unless you believe the climate is not chaotic this means that future outcomes cannot be predicted by any means. Statistical analysis of data and control theory to analyze past possible forcings and feedbacks are the tools of climatologists – That is why Burt Rutan is a credible source on this subject. Notice that none of my discussion has anything to do with anyone’s possible motives.
the orcastaters and partisipators of the AGW’s kind of stike me as being post turtle.
post turtle is a turtle that has been placed on the top of a post along the road he has no idea how he got up there no idea what he is doing there and no way to get down.
I am partixularly interested in the link to Richard Branson whose latest green stunt is to sponsor a Formula One team. ” BBBBUT I thought the cars rans on carbon neutral ethanol from carbon offset plantations that used to provide cheap food to the third world”
With regards to Richard Branson, while the closest I’ve ever gone to him is to shake his hand (an act which probably means I’m in the company of hundreds of thousands of people), I have read all of his books, watched many interviews and followed his blog. I also accept that his public persona may have nothing to do with his private persona, although I’m inclined to believe that it’s very similar.
It’s true that he’s a convert to the AGW crowd and has made big pushes in this direction, donating the profits on his transportation businesses, offering a prize for a solution, etc.
It’s also true that he’s dyslexic, and while I can’t recall if he finished high school or not, he definitely didn’t do a university degree, as he was already in business by that time.
As others have stated, the fact that Rutan and Branson have a bet going shows them to be of an even mind, and not dogmatic about their beliefs. It is possible for reasonable people to disagree and get on.
It’s also false that ‘most of Rutan’s money comes from Branson’. The Virgin Galactic business has probably provided Rutan with investment money to build planes, but I think that statement would be ostensibly false. And knowing Branson’s way of doing business, I doubt he has much more than a 50% stake in the business. Enough to keep control, but he rarely, if ever, is the sole backer of a business.
Finally, onto Bransons’ beliefs in AGW. I think what you see here is the workings of a business brain which is finely in tune with the trends of his age. He has been convinced by people with the facts and numbers behind them, albeit discredited hockey sticks and homogenised temperature data. He is hardly alone in this situation. The fact that Branson is a passionate guy when he gets onto a trend probably just amplifies his statement and actions. He also is in good company at a corporate level – like politicians, they are trend-followers. If being seen as green is good for the airline business, etc, then that’s what they do. In Bransons’ case, most of the really visible arms of his business are in transportation – his companies burn thousands of tons of fossil fuels every day, so there’s an extra need for a bit of greenwashing. There’s really no downside for a corporate entity to align themselves with AGW. Do some greenwashing, public holds you in good stead. Go on record as anti-AGW and in the current (pardon thep un) climate, you’ll get slandered, labelled and boycotted. In fact, you’ll find it hard to find a CEO that doesn’t support the AGW, even if they privately are skeptical. In fact the sponsorship of F1 teams by Virgin shows
In summary, I don’t think attacking figures such as Branson is helpful. He’s not setting public policy, not proposing new taxes, not doing anything to impose limits. He’s there to run his businesses and make money, and he’ll follow the trend. This is applicable to all heads of business, apart from the ones actively trying to get carbon trading going. The figures that need to be taken down a notch are the ones who propose to change public policy, are media talking heads, the ones who stand to profit from carbon trading and scientists who are prone to alarmism and publicity seeking. The likes of Branson will quickly change track once public opinion sways away from AGW.
artwest (22:28:31) :
OT:
Over at Heresy Corner, a once-firm trust in settled science starts to waver and the author points out a nugget of information of which I wasn’t aware (maybe everyone else is):
“But you’ll have noticed the really amazing sentence in Paul’s defence of the Met Office. “We take the highest 15 readings between November and March and then produce an average.”
Note that a later post by commenter “tony” says, “Sorry Rob and everybody else. Yes I was being sarcastic, I could not help it. I thought that was how they did it. Global warming/climate change is just a big con.”
– tony, norwich, norfolk, 4/1/2010 6:05 (screen 5 of all comments)
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1239908/Britains-big-freeze-hit-return-work-forecasters-issue-new-ice-alert-drivers.html#ixzz0cFYJ2JNL
However it does seem that some have taken the original (sarcastic) comment as a serious one. But trusting an unsubstantiated comment on a blog is pretty risky!
The 28th of January 2010 edition of New Scientist in its Opinion section carried an interview by journalist David Cohen with Burt Rutan. As a tailpiece to the WUWT comments, I thought that this was amusing…….
I whip out my list of questions, but before I get to the first, Rutan blindsides me. “Which magazine are you from again?” I tell him. “OK, well, I won’t talk to Scientific American,” he says, “They improperly covered man-made global warming. They drink Kool-Aid instead of doing research. They parrot stuff from the IPCC and Al Gore.” I’m taken aback but curiosity gets the better of me so I ask him what he means. For the next 30 minutes he launches into an impassioned diatribe. He believes claims of catastrophic global warming are nothing but scare-mongering and are a product of “the greatest scientific fraud ever”. At first I think this is some sort of joke but he’s totally serious and at times gets quite angry.