Like the Apollo astronauts who have walked on the moon and the NASA staff that discount the severity of the global warming alarm (Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky, please take note of this for your moon landing conspiracy theories), another prominent aerospace figure comes out with what he thinks about the pal review system and the claims made in journals:
“I was shocked to find that there were actually climate scientists who wouldn’t share the raw data, but would only share their conclusions in summary graphs that were used to prove their various theories about planet warming. In fact I began to smell something really bad, and the worse that smell got, the deeper I looked.”
That quote is from Burt Rutan, an engineer whom not only has achieved great things, but who is also an avid reader of WUWT.
You can read the entire article at Larry Bell’s Forbes column:
You go Burt!
When Burt talks, pilots and airplane owners like me, listen.
Haven’t read your climate stuff yet Burt, but I will.
Still working those long weeks in my own business and pick up what I can, when I can, regarding climate, here at WUWT.
PS: There are some really cool lakes down here in Oregon on theWest side of the Three Sisters area you should target when your sea plane is done.
Best,
Ron Richey
You may also want to go to http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm.
PLEASE ……. Go to Rutan’s web site and check out his research page ……. it is a wealth of wonderful information ….OPEN to all to look at !!! …….. THANKYOU Mr Rutan
But Bert Rutan is an engineer, familiar with the real world and how things actually work. He’s a real professional. He’s not one of those academics working away behind closed doors with their toys and models.
Burt Rutan was always one of my hero’s as a kid. I always wanted to build one of his ultralight canard designs. Maybe one day I will. Thanks for being a lifelong inspiration!
I’m starting to wonder if the good Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky wants out of the climate debate alarmism cult. Clearly he knows about the former NASA employee letter, and all that have taken a more reasonable and objective look on the climate issue over the last few years. Combined with his redicilous websurvey paper, I see it as a scream for help. I also had the same thoughts on the whole Glieck tradegy. Surely, incompetence alone doesn’t allow for this.
Rutan is an inquisitive and reasonable man with an engineering background. I am not surprised that he see through all this like all other reasonable men.
Exactly my story too.
The way Svensmark was treated by IPCC-Followers really got me started. They nearly pushed him out of his life: just read about what effects the “scientific response” to his hypothesis were.
gruel
Excellent Article – a good read – good to hear that a review of the data by someone of ability is so popular from google searches. Confirms that the Alarmist spin is no longer the only game in town.
To accomplish something hard, like Burt Rutan, you must be able to distinguish between reality and mindless twaddle.
It’s good to read that someone agrees with my suspicions.
Burt is such a treasure! But I am not surprised: You can’t safely lift a man off the ground and bring him back if you don’t possess the ability to smell rotten ideas. And we know Burt had his senses tested real hard.
More and more adults realize that the children have been playing in the kitchen without supervision too long.
aquix says:
September 12, 2012 at 9:01 am
It might appear as incompetent to you but have we heard from any social scientist about that? I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a rather normal paper in those circles.
What I can’t figure out is how Burt can filter out the enviro-geekery of one of his close associates in aerospace: Sir Richard Branson. That’d take some doing listening to the faux-elitist environmentalism espoused by the Bigfoot of carbon, without b*tch-slapping some common sense into him.
I have to admire him for that alone.
Yeah, Rutan’s name is one I’ve come to respect greatly over the years, and I’ll always pause to see what he’s saying. He’s an engineers’ version of Feynman – thorough and careful.
I’ll also second Julian Braggins’ recommendation on Tips ‘n’ Notes of http://burtrutan.com/burtrutan/downloads/EngrCritiqueCAGW-v4o3.pdf – a proper engineer’s dismissal of nonscience. If I found Burt Rutan shredding something I believed in, I’d give that belief a very thorough examination before continuing to believe.
If only he could get through to his partner Richard Branson.
Checked into Rutan’s background. Very interesting. Seems he’s skeptical over a lot of things and wanted to do a lot of research in them rather than listen to others. Just like me. I liked the fact that he also looked into the building of Pyramids because he didn’t think the conventional theory was good enough. I wonder if he had read Chris Dunn’s books over it? Very detailed and it was based on engineering point of view as well. Must read books!
But, but… he’s not a climate scientist! /sarc
I love the signature sound of an approaching Long Easy – there’s obviously an owner of one near my home since on weekends the distinctive sound announces its arrival. My two sons will never forget the name Rutan since I always let them know that the canard design is on its way over us. It is oh so refreshing knowing that a brilliant aerospace engineer also applies the same level of industrious inquiry to climate science as he does his creations. And Burt’s results speak for themselves.
The comments on the Forbes interview were telling. The AGW trolls are everywhere. Especially liked the one stating Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” was well researched and validated. And of course the “your no climate scientist” remarks were also in some comments.
jayhd says:
The comments on the Forbes interview were telling…
About what I noticed. Funny, the reliance on ‘consensus’ rather than facts – helping to make is point for him.
I recall my surprise when Voyager was able to fly around the world nonstop in 1986. I had thought for reasons of scale, that this feat would have required an extremely large aircraft (to carry enough fuel) flying at great altitude. (thinner air) the previous record was held by a B52, something like 12,000 miles, less than half the distance Voyager. Anyway, I thought it was cool that a low drag design powered by a relatively simple horizontally opposed piston engine (I think the second engine was unused for most of the flight), flying at modest altitude 10 to 12,000 ft was the design that blew away the previous record. Very cool! Ingenious design!
Anyway, Mr Rutan’s views on global warming are also cool.
Clearly Mr Rutan’s not understood that facts , data and reality have a secondary role in climate ‘science’, primary is models ,adherence to dogma and the ‘truth to power ‘ spoken by its prophets.
Like many once he starts to look at it as a religion not a science he will understand how it actual works .
…Since I’m very accustomed to analyzing a lot of data, about three or four years ago many alarmist claims by some climate scientists caught my attention. Since this is such an important topic, I began to look into it firsthand.
Although I have no climate science credentials, I do have considerable expertise in processing and presenting data…
Well, I am also an engineer approximately same age as Burt, and like model flying as he does 🙂 We have also the same skeptical view on climate science in common. My blog devoted to Rutan early last year: http://agbjarn.blog.is/blog/agbjarn/entry/1130066/
Ágúst
Maybe there should be a Nobel Prize for outstanding engineering analysis.
I think Burt Rutan’s 2010 Critique of Global Warming ‘Science’ qualifies:
http://rps3.com/Files/Ochkosh_2010_talks/Oshkosh2010.EngrCritique.AGW.pdf
Anthony, thank you for presenting this to us.
Burt Rutan, thank you. I seem to identify with the thought process of engineers. I will visit other links with regards to knowledge you are willing to share. Good luck with that “river plane”.
Oh look – a Peter Gleick Moment (the opposite of a Sister Souljah Moment) is found.
The exact PG Moment:
Rutan is a doer; he does actual stuff, designing, testing, building, flying. He has common sense, and a nose for BS.
On the other side are Activists, who simply want to change everything about the status quo because it makes them feel important and virtuous. They actually do nothing, unless you call spewing out reams of press releases relating to new computer models, doing something.
When geniuses like Rutan and Dyson speak, the rest of us should pay attention. If you’re into the authority argument, I’d believe those two over any number of climate scientists.
Burtan Rutan was quite a good engineer. But he is utterly clueless about climate science.
jan,
And your expertise is what, exactly? In your opinion what part is ‘clueless’?
G. E. Pease says:
September 12, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Maybe there should be a Nobel Prize for outstanding engineering analysis.
I think Burt Rutan’s 2010 Critique of Global Warming ‘Science’ qualifies:
http://rps3.com/Files/Ochkosh_2010_talks/Oshkosh2010.EngrCritique.AGW.pdf
=========================
Thanks for the link to more of Burt Rutan’s work. Very interesting.
From page 4 of the above link:
The focus is on an Engineering Approach – where
data are critical and there are consequences for
being wrong; not the Scientist approach – where a
theory is the product and it can be right or wrong
without repercussions.
Now that’s the approach I can believe in.
This is Burt Rutan:
Burt Rutan design: first feathered flight of Spaceship Two
A wonder to watch
I just finished reading Burt Rutan’s v4.3 dated Jan 2011 at link referenced by Steve C, September 12, 2012 at 10:05 am
Quote pg 94:
“The Difference between an Environmentalist and a Denier
You can easily tell if someone is a true environmentalist, i.e.
an advocate for a healthy planet – he is one who is happy to
hear the news that the arctic ice has returned. He is one who
celebrates when the recent climate data show the alarmist’s
predictions of catastrophic warming might be wrong. The
denier, if he is an eco/political activist, always denies new data
that show the planet may be healthy after all. The Media
usually defines deniers as those who deny the scientist’s
computer model predictions. However, denying the measured
climate data meets a better definition in the world of science.”
Burt Rutan
If you haven’t followed the links to Rutan’s publications, then you need too. If you are an engineer, you should do so. He speaks your language.
Thanks for the link. I went to Burtan Rutan’s site, and liked it (in a personal sense, not the FB sense). Unfortunately, I could not find any way to convey that liking, or other comments, through his site. If he reads WUWT, well, I just want to make the suggestion that he include in his site a way to respond and discuss. I know that opens doors to lots of trouble, but my responses, at least, would be positive.
Peter Hannan says: September 12, 2012 at 11:51 pm
I don’t think that like/dislikes have any real meaning to those who have deal with the real world. Great engineers don’t care whether anyone else liked or disliked their approaches. What really matters is whether or not designs and analyses are correct, address the problem at hand, and can be implemented using available technologies.
If Burt Rutan had been overly concerned with other people’s opinions of his designs, he would have been mired in the same conventional thought along with the vast majority of his contemporaries. This is the difference between being a genius or just average. This is the difference that makes Mr. Rutan a giant in his field.
I think Mr. Rutan understands clearly that if the standards of climate science would have been applied to aviation, we’d still be laughed at for uttering the idea that powered heavier-than-air flight is possible by the public, while billions of dollars got spent on the development of blimps propelled by the exhaust gases of burning manure.