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:
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.
@ur momisuglyBrendan 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…
@ur momisugly 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.