This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
While I agree that James Hansen may have more weight in a discussion of climate, and industrial engineer shouldn't be excluded from the debate because his specialty isn't "climate science". I think all of the basic engineering degrees (except for Computer Engineering) require at least 3 terms of Thermo, 3 terms of Physics, 3 terms of Chemistry. We all should have a reasonable grasp of Heat Balances (can you draw a box around the earth and figure out what the accumulation term is), Basic Chemistry (where does CO2 come from and what uses it [that might be botany, which wasn't required]), and a decent grasp of radiation physics (hot bodies and the like).
Engineering is relevant to the Climate Change discussion.
Of course, if they start talking non-sense the gigs up, cause just having an engineering degree doesn't mean you paid much attention.
Perhaps, it is not actually necessary to have a degree in science to see the folly of the AGW theory.The ability to reason with logic might be handy also.
The world has been getting warmer since the last ice age,about 10,000 years ago.
Man has been pumping large amounts of industrial CO2 for only the last 200 or so years.
What then caused the warming for the first 9,800 years?
AGW people say that the world is getting too warm;but, they never have said,or will not say, what the ideal average global temp should be.
May we not be just coming up on the ideal temperature rather than having gone past it?
My daughter came to me and said: "Daddy, if God wants us to have a nicer, warmer world, why is it that these people are trying to cool it again?"
I was having an argument with the neighbor over my firepit, I wish I could have taken a picture of his face!
The problem faced by many "scientists" is that the learned societies they belong to - like mine never canvas the views of members/fellows. Policy is decided by a caucus of self elected chums. I think if ever the RS and other societies actually consulted their membership then a completely different result would be obtained.
I think you should think more carefully before dismissing an opinion because you have no respect for the 'qualifications' of the owner. This criticism is double edged, one thinks of the anti AWG campaigner Christopher Monkton, who I don't think is a qualified scientist.
The Wright brothers were 'only' bicycle mechanics, but if you read an account of their work prepatory to building their first successful manned powered air flight, you will see that they were scientists to their finger tips!
So the question that comes to mind is "Why don't members of societies exert upward pressure to bring things into the open?"
I may have a partial answer to that - off to look for a link ...
The "learned" societies always have had an overtly political agenda and that's always going to be even more the case of a club you have to get asked to join rather than one you can get into by fulfilling the membership requirements. It should be no surprise that they back the wrong horse occasionally, or even most of the time.
Science is open to all comers in my view. There is no entrance exam, any point made by any one might be correct or at least worthy of consideration. Any kind of science club smacks of the very authoritarianism we hate in bodies like the IPCC.
You know, even a lowly clerk, passed over for promotion, working away in in the back room of a patent office in Switzerland might have something scientific to say that is worth listening to now and again.
Found it - or something close enough.
The comment about the two papers submitted being rejected with instructions not to resubmit.
AGW is nearly complete. Its believers are now shutting down qualified dissent. We are in big trouble.
Yes, it is a bit disturbing. In early October Roy Spencer said in an interview that the only journal he could still publish in was Geophysical Research Letters and that loophole has now been closed.
"Do you ever try to get your research published in Science and Nature?
Not anymore. Their editorial policy basically won't permit stuff like this. If they don't find an excuse to object outright, all it takes is them sending it to a reviewer like Kevin Trenberth who will say "This is garbage," and come up with some obscure, non-reason why. And then they don't have to deal with it. So I don't deal with them any more.
With the current attitudes toward skeptics, then, can such viewpoints still get published in major climate and science journals?
We're finding, the only place I'm submitting right now is Geophysical Research Letters. The American Geophysical Union is still kind of open minded. They've come out with a policy statement that goes along with the IPCC, but it seems like their editorial policy for their journals is still pretty flexible. But again I don't think there's that much good skeptic science going on right now. There's a lot of good ideas, but nobody's funded to do anything."
Soooo, Exxon must be pumping all their dollars into the warmist side then.
Well, well well.
Who'd 'a thought it?
Re : GeoS
"The problem faced by many "scientists" is that the learned societies they belong to - like mine never canvas the views of members/fellows. Policy is decided by a caucus of self elected chums. I think if ever the RS and other societies actually consulted their membership then a completely different result would be obtained."
Strongly agree. So let's organise a survey. Where can I get a list of all Fellows of the RS ? GeoS, which is your learned society, and can you get a list of memebrs ?
Nigel Farndale is probably right, if he included the AGW pseudo scientists, as they outnumber real scientists by about 10 to 1, anyway, it is still meaningless blather.
However, the very important contribution from JamesV, (“Science is open to all comers in my view. There is no entrance exam, any point made by any one might be correct or at least worthy of consideration”), has my absolute endorsement. After all, traditional science is not magic, it is just an agreed methodology, and any person who diligently applies the tenets and disciplines of that methodology, and can 'prove' their results, is practising science and therefore can honestly claim to be a scientist.
The school that I attended, took pride in the fact that they provided a 'scientific education'. This did not mean that there was a bias in the curriculum for studying the sciences, far from it, multiple choices ensured that most pupils were able to excel in at least one subject. What they took pride in was Their 'methodology', as applied to the business of promoting learning in the young. It was a process of the inculcation of Method to make acquisition of the Tools of learning stick. Not surprisingly, it was based on the disciplines of traditional science, the difference was, they applied it to everything, from art to sport, from languages to literature, from craft to music. We were a 'happy' bunch, because we had few exams: merit was earned through application. --- Uniquely, that school was more concerned with what you did with their gifts, and how you applied them later in life. --- I am proud of the fact that I am an 'Old Leamingtonian'.
Industry, and business at large care little for scientific opinion, where it relates to their particular practises, because science is regarded as a purely academic pursuit, necessarily maintaining a distance from the distractions of the practical world. When pushing the van of new technologies, industry finds it much more cost effective to use their own in-house talent, make them an offer they can't refuse, based on a fixed budget, and expected result. Get it wrong, you get the boot', get it right and you can become modestly well off. It all used to work rather well, until the PC interests took over. Now, you 'can't do aught' without the endorsement of a 'celebrity pseudo scientist'. --- My choice of career in the engineering industry, virtually compelled me to become a Polymath in all the scientific and technical disciplines. Industrial product design and development takes you down some very esoteric routes in the search for excellence, (or profit). When asked about my qualifications, my response was, and still is:--- “Successful products in the market-place, making a profit for everyone in the line, Including The Customer.” --- In every discipline, (except academia) then, meaningful qualifications can only exist as a result of your work, if it is consistently bad, you are not qualified, if consistently good then you are. Qualification is a qualitative matter.
I very strongly agree with everything you say - my original post was playing 'Devil's advocate' as usual, but perhaps you didn't notice my posting of 12th Nov, which was out of sequence and was a reply to Jerry and said much the same thing as you & James V.
My own father was probably one of the finest industrial microbiologists this country has ever produced, but his career progress was continuously blocked, (because he had no first degree), by qualified superiors any three of whom would collectively not have been his equal. He achieved the academic plaudits in later life, but my mother observed to me, that it had taken him 'years to earn a decent salary' and he never achieved the financial position his developments should have earned him and his family.