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:
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.