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:
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.