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:
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.
@ur momisugly 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.