Global Warming Pause May Disappear.

[autigeremt 6,652]

...Claiming and engineer isn't a scientist is also something to behold...

The only way you'd ever assume an engineer (particularly a civil engineer) is a scientist is if you do not know the definition of either.

50 years ago I'd agree with you but times have changed the the interdisciplinary studies within both have created a new version of engineers that have more science built into their background. The similarities are more notable now with the evolution of environmental engineers and chemical/material engineers. Scientists like to find "truth" and engineers like to create based on the "truth" found in whatever model or component they are trying to create. Let's face it....things have changed in both fields.

Of course science is in an engineers' background. Always has been. They're the ones that put science to practice.

There are a few fields where those lines are blurred, true, but the vast majority of them are not. Civil engineering is not.

I'm guessing he/she graduated in 09, so I'd say he/she had a pretty good taste of environmental engineering. Regardless he/she shared his/her take within the scope of his/her work and experiences. Being taken to breakfast wasn't part of it.

Environmental engineers are not environmental scientists, EMT. Again, they often work hand in hand, but there is an important distinction.

To illutrate, I'm a biomedical engineering technologist. My field is essentially electromechanical engineering. I put science into practice and have a decent grasp of EE and ME, but I'm not a scientist. My boss is a clinical engineer, an applied engineer that has actually been involved in research. He'd tell you the same thing.

I always liked it phrased thusly. "One prefers the unknown. The other can't stand it."

I never said environmental engineers are scientists, but you have to take into account some of the experience and information they bring to the table...BigBen (of which I am a big fan of.....thanks for the two rings and three trips to the super bowl). lol

[autigeremt 6,652]

Look at the one I blew up in post 139. Every single one of those runs were with RCP 8.5. The most extreme scenario.

I understand that. However, the extreme scenario is what everyday people are subjected to that do not have this conversation we are having. Even the less extreme scenarios model higher than the observed. Just less so. These models would not create the panic of the 8.5 models.

I don't really care what everyday people are exposed to. It shouldn't need to be explained that trying to counterbalance a (perceived) wrong with another one. Not really germane to this discussion.

I'd suggest looking at runs of the various models with RCP 4.5, one of the middling scenarios. The observations do fall within the range of uncertainty for those.

I'd also suggest looking at other observed temperature data sets than your preferred UAH data, which has been a bit of an outlier compared to most others.

I look at much data and quite often. Like ive said - it is an aspect of my job. You guys know I worked at the Department of Environmental Management in the Air Division before going private, right? I am not on here as THE expert of all, but I am willing to bet my understanding of this far exceeds many in the US

You are NOT a scientist...therefore you are just a numbers guy with the ability to create what others have come up with. lmao

[AUDub 11,158]

You are NOT a scientist...therefore you are just a numbers guy with the ability to create what others have come up with. lmao

I never said environmental engineers are scientists, but you have to take into account some of the experience and information they bring to the table...BigBen (of which I am a big fan of.....thanks for the two rings and three trips to the super bowl). lol

I can tell you a lot about electromagnetism and mechanics, if you're curious. Doesn't make me a physicist.

[autigeremt 6,652]

You are NOT a scientist...therefore you are just a numbers guy with the ability to create what others have come up with. lmao

I never said environmental engineers are scientists, but you have to take into account some of the experience and information they bring to the table...BigBen (of which I am a big fan of.....thanks for the two rings and three trips to the super bowl). lol

I can tell you a lot about electromagnetism and mechanics, if you're curious. Doesn't make me a physicist.

No...but your experience and application make you a professional in your field.

[AUDub 11,158]

You are NOT a scientist...therefore you are just a numbers guy with the ability to create what others have come up with. lmao

I never said environmental engineers are scientists, but you have to take into account some of the experience and information they bring to the table...BigBen (of which I am a big fan of.....thanks for the two rings and three trips to the super bowl). lol

I can tell you a lot about electromagnetism and mechanics, if you're curious. Doesn't make me a physicist.

No...but your experience and application make you a professional in your field.

Still a grease-monkey, not an egghead.

[AUcivE09 582]

Look at the one I blew up in post 139. Every single one of those runs were with RCP 8.5. The most extreme scenario.

I understand that. However, the extreme scenario is what everyday people are subjected to that do not have this conversation we are having. Even the less extreme scenarios model higher than the observed. Just less so. These models would not create the panic of the 8.5 models.

I don't really care what everyday people are exposed to. It shouldn't need to be explained that trying to counterbalance a (perceived) wrong with another one. Not really germane to this discussion.

I'd suggest looking at runs of the various models with RCP 4.5, one of the middling scenarios. The observations do fall within the range of uncertainty for those.

I'd also suggest looking at other observed temperature data sets than your preferred UAH data, which has been a bit of an outlier compared to most others.

I look at much data and quite often. Like ive said - it is an aspect of my job. You guys know I worked at the Department of Environmental Management in the Air Division before going private, right? I am not on here as THE expert of all, but I am willing to bet my understanding of this far exceeds many in the US

You are NOT a scientist...therefore you are just a numbers guy with the ability to create what others have come up with. lmao

Correct, I am not a scientist. I do something practical and tangible with my degree! =) Unfortunately for them I can understand what they do and ask the educated questions, making their life a living hell! lol

[japantiger 4,051]

Look at the one I blew up in post 139. Every single one of those runs were with RCP 8.5. The most extreme scenario.

I understand that. However, the extreme scenario is what everyday people are subjected to that do not have this conversation we are having. Even the less extreme scenarios model higher than the observed. Just less so. These models would not create the panic of the 8.5 models.

I don't really care what everyday people are exposed to. It shouldn't need to be explained that trying to counterbalance a (perceived) wrong with another one. Not really germane to this discussion.

I'd suggest looking at runs of the various models with RCP 4.5, one of the middling scenarios. The observations do fall within the range of uncertainty for those.

I'd also suggest looking at other observed temperature data sets than your preferred UAH data, which has been a bit of an outlier compared to most others.

I look at much data and quite often. Like ive said - it is an aspect of my job. You guys know I worked at the Department of Environmental Management in the Air Division before going private, right? I am not on here as THE expert of all, but I am willing to bet my understanding of this far exceeds many in the US

You are NOT a scientist...therefore you are just a numbers guy with the ability to create what others have come up with. lmao

Correct, I am not a scientist. I do something practical and tangible with my degree! =) Unfortunately for them I can understand what they do and ask the educated questions, making their life a living hell! lol

Give it up E09; these guys will never understand that in theory, theory and practice are the same thing...in practice, they aren't. A scientist or a bureaucrat said it...it must be true. After all, we can trust our government implicitly; I mean they would never lie to us.

[AUDub 11,158]

Look at the one I blew up in post 139. Every single one of those runs were with RCP 8.5. The most extreme scenario.

I understand that. However, the extreme scenario is what everyday people are subjected to that do not have this conversation we are having. Even the less extreme scenarios model higher than the observed. Just less so. These models would not create the panic of the 8.5 models.

I don't really care what everyday people are exposed to. It shouldn't need to be explained that trying to counterbalance a (perceived) wrong with another one. Not really germane to this discussion.

I'd suggest looking at runs of the various models with RCP 4.5, one of the middling scenarios. The observations do fall within the range of uncertainty for those.

I'd also suggest looking at other observed temperature data sets than your preferred UAH data, which has been a bit of an outlier compared to most others.

I look at much data and quite often. Like ive said - it is an aspect of my job. You guys know I worked at the Department of Environmental Management in the Air Division before going private, right? I am not on here as THE expert of all, but I am willing to bet my understanding of this far exceeds many in the US

You are NOT a scientist...therefore you are just a numbers guy with the ability to create what others have come up with. ;)/> lmao

Correct, I am not a scientist. I do something practical and tangible with my degree! =) Unfortunately for them I can understand what they do and ask the educated questions, making their life a living hell! lol

Give it up E09; these guys will never understand that in theory, theory and practice are the same thing...in practice, they aren't. A scientist or a bureaucrat said it...it must be true. After all, we can trust our government implicitly; I mean they would never lie to us.

Thank you for your contribution.

[japantiger 4,051]

Look at the one I blew up in post 139. Every single one of those runs were with RCP 8.5. The most extreme scenario.

I understand that. However, the extreme scenario is what everyday people are subjected to that do not have this conversation we are having. Even the less extreme scenarios model higher than the observed. Just less so. These models would not create the panic of the 8.5 models.

I don't really care what everyday people are exposed to. It shouldn't need to be explained that trying to counterbalance a (perceived) wrong with another one. Not really germane to this discussion.

I'd suggest looking at runs of the various models with RCP 4.5, one of the middling scenarios. The observations do fall within the range of uncertainty for those.

I'd also suggest looking at other observed temperature data sets than your preferred UAH data, which has been a bit of an outlier compared to most others.

I look at much data and quite often. Like ive said - it is an aspect of my job. You guys know I worked at the Department of Environmental Management in the Air Division before going private, right? I am not on here as THE expert of all, but I am willing to bet my understanding of this far exceeds many in the US

You are NOT a scientist...therefore you are just a numbers guy with the ability to create what others have come up with. ;)/> lmao

Correct, I am not a scientist. I do something practical and tangible with my degree! =) Unfortunately for them I can understand what they do and ask the educated questions, making their life a living hell! lol

Give it up E09; these guys will never understand that in theory, theory and practice are the same thing...in practice, they aren't. A scientist or a bureaucrat said it...it must be true. After all, we can trust our government implicitly; I mean they would never lie to us.

Thank you for your contribution.

Your Welcome Ben...

[AUDub 11,158]

Look at the one I blew up in post 139. Every single one of those runs were with RCP 8.5. The most extreme scenario.

I understand that. However, the extreme scenario is what everyday people are subjected to that do not have this conversation we are having. Even the less extreme scenarios model higher than the observed. Just less so. These models would not create the panic of the 8.5 models.

I don't really care what everyday people are exposed to. It shouldn't need to be explained that trying to counterbalance a (perceived) wrong with another one. Not really germane to this discussion.

I'd suggest looking at runs of the various models with RCP 4.5, one of the middling scenarios. The observations do fall within the range of uncertainty for those.

I'd also suggest looking at other observed temperature data sets than your preferred UAH data, which has been a bit of an outlier compared to most others.

I look at much data and quite often. Like ive said - it is an aspect of my job. You guys know I worked at the Department of Environmental Management in the Air Division before going private, right? I am not on here as THE expert of all, but I am willing to bet my understanding of this far exceeds many in the US

You are NOT a scientist...therefore you are just a numbers guy with the ability to create what others have come up with. ;)/> lmao

Correct, I am not a scientist. I do something practical and tangible with my degree! =) Unfortunately for them I can understand what they do and ask the educated questions, making their life a living hell! lol

Give it up E09; these guys will never understand that in theory, theory and practice are the same thing...in practice, they aren't. A scientist or a bureaucrat said it...it must be true. After all, we can trust our government implicitly; I mean they would never lie to us.

Thank you for your contribution.

Your Welcome Ben...

Am I allowed to riff on this since Weegs went all grammar nazi on us?

[AUUSN 823]

[AUDub 11,158]

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Look at the one I blew up in post 139. Every single one of those runs were with RCP 8.5. The most extreme scenario.

I understand that. However, the extreme scenario is what everyday people are subjected to that do not have this conversation we are having. Even the less extreme scenarios model higher than the observed. Just less so. These models would not create the panic of the 8.5 models.

I don't really care what everyday people are exposed to. It shouldn't need to be explained that trying to counterbalance a (perceived) wrong with another one. Not really germane to this discussion.

I'd suggest looking at runs of the various models with RCP 4.5, one of the middling scenarios. The observations do fall within the range of uncertainty for those.

I'd also suggest looking at other observed temperature data sets than your preferred UAH data, which has been a bit of an outlier compared to most others.

I look at much data and quite often. Like ive said - it is an aspect of my job. You guys know I worked at the Department of Environmental Management in the Air Division before going private, right? I am not on here as THE expert of all, but I am willing to bet my understanding of this far exceeds many in the US

You are NOT a scientist...therefore you are just a numbers guy with the ability to create what others have come up with. ;)/> lmao

Correct, I am not a scientist. I do something practical and tangible with my degree! =) Unfortunately for them I can understand what they do and ask the educated questions, making their life a living hell! lol

Give it up E09; these guys will never understand that in theory, theory and practice are the same thing...in practice, they aren't. A scientist or a bureaucrat said it...it must be true. After all, we can trust our government implicitly; I mean they would never lie to us.

Thank you for your contribution.

Your Welcome Ben...

Am I allowed to riff on this since Weegs went all grammar nazi on us?

Your

[DKW 86 7,431]

I REALLY enjoyed that.

I know i am the Absolute King of the Fat Fingered Keys. It is who i am...lol

[homersapien 11,393]

This all began with this statement...

"I could care less if it's your "everyday job". I used to have engineers for breakfast. So, if you run to form, you know a lot about a narrow subject." homer

I stand by what I said. Claiming and engineer isn't a scientist is also something to behold. There's a lot of science within the engineering field. It may not always be based on biological sciences. Once again....I stand by what I said.

It's "couldn't" care less, by the way,homer.

Good job Weegs! Come on Homer!

Agreed, that was a good catch Weegs!

It's hard for me to feel confident about anything I write without multiple drafts. And even then, I often screw up on such details. (And let's not even talk about the necessity of spell check. :-\ )

Anyway, thanks for reading carefully as well as the correction.

[homersapien 11,393]

Character attacks seem to evolve from career to academics to the debate team in here. Let's face it....pollution is bad, clean air is good....but fossil fuel is here for at least 100 years or more. Maybe we just need to plant a lot of trees and hope for the best...lol

I find it strange that you get so offended if an engineer gets his comeuppance after making an totally arrogant argument-from-authority based on his experience with modeling in a unrelated field, but never make mention of crude insults and name calling that is standard fare by certain posters.

Is "I used to have engineers for breakfast" really so much worse than "imbecile homo" or "pathetic piece of s***"?

You obviously have selective reading habits, mayor of starsville. If you can't see the trees for the forest then you can't be helped. I wasn't defending the engineer as much as I was defending against this practice of defamation you and your ilk continue to spew.

That's not much of a response.

06 comes on here and proclaims himself an authority and further states the science of AGW is an "insult to his profession".

I throw the same sort of arrogance right back at him and you claim I am "defaming" him? Like I said this is hardball, or it ought to be. If you can't handle the blowback, be careful of what you post. That goes equally for everyone.

I don't get it. It's defamation to give him little of his own medicine while it's OK to call someone a "pathetic piece of s***". But it's me and "my ilk" that are crossing the line?

Riiiight. :-\/>

You don't get it because you won't. It's not in your DNA to accept return fire for what you accuse others of doing. So yes it is YOU!

But I would never call you homo.....

I like how you avoided his question and how your outrage has been solely directed at Homer. Guess he's simply an acceptable target.

If you have any integrity at all, I expect to see you leap to his defense next time Proud calls him homo or "pathetic piece of s***."

Homer has been defended by me in the past on several occasions. Just because you weren't here doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I'll vouch for that. In fact, I respect and admire emt.

Sometimes though, he's just wrong.

If fact, I respect and admire the profession of engineering. They design the "skeleton" that allows our culture to exist. Furthermore, many of them wind up filling roles in the "nervous system", which is a good thing. We don't have enough engineers. (Can't say that about Lawyers, for example.)

But there's something about the study of engineering that breads over-confidence. Maybe because it's not easy? But that overconfidence is often extrapolated into areas they really know very little about.

And trust me, I did not invent this perspective. People who work with engineers know exactly what I am talking about.

[homersapien 11,393]

This all began with this statement...

"I could care less if it's your "everyday job". I used to have engineers for breakfast. So, if you run to form, you know a lot about a narrow subject." homer

I stand by what I said. Claiming and engineer isn't a scientist is also something to behold. There's a lot of science within the engineering field. It may not always be based on biological sciences. Once again....I stand by what I said.

Where exactly did I claim " and(sic) engineer isn't a scientist"?

Many engineers do or can function as scientists. And obviously, they have to understand a lot of science to be engineers in the first place.

Conversely, I myself functioned as an engineer or designer in many aspects of my career. Otherwise, I worked or closely with engineers in most respects.

Frankly, this is probably more about experience than it is profession. You have to really watch out for the young ones (engineers). They will get you into trouble without even knowing it themselves until it's too late. And I admit, a young engineer throwing his weight around hits a tender spot for me.

[AUDub 11,158]

Character attacks seem to evolve from career to academics to the debate team in here. Let's face it....pollution is bad, clean air is good....but fossil fuel is here for at least 100 years or more. Maybe we just need to plant a lot of trees and hope for the best...lol

I find it strange that you get so offended if an engineer gets his comeuppance after making an totally arrogant argument-from-authority based on his experience with modeling in a unrelated field, but never make mention of crude insults and name calling that is standard fare by certain posters.

Is "I used to have engineers for breakfast" really so much worse than "imbecile homo" or "pathetic piece of s***"?

You obviously have selective reading habits, mayor of starsville. If you can't see the trees for the forest then you can't be helped. I wasn't defending the engineer as much as I was defending against this practice of defamation you and your ilk continue to spew.

That's not much of a response.

06 comes on here and proclaims himself an authority and further states the science of AGW is an "insult to his profession".

I throw the same sort of arrogance right back at him and you claim I am "defaming" him? Like I said this is hardball, or it ought to be. If you can't handle the blowback, be careful of what you post. That goes equally for everyone.

I don't get it. It's defamation to give him little of his own medicine while it's OK to call someone a "pathetic piece of s***". But it's me and "my ilk" that are crossing the line?

Riiiight. :-\/>

You don't get it because you won't. It's not in your DNA to accept return fire for what you accuse others of doing. So yes it is YOU!

But I would never call you homo.....

I like how you avoided his question and how your outrage has been solely directed at Homer. Guess he's simply an acceptable target.

If you have any integrity at all, I expect to see you leap to his defense next time Proud calls him homo or "pathetic piece of s***."

Homer has been defended by me in the past on several occasions. Just because you weren't here doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I'll vouch for that. In fact, I respect and admire emt.

Sometimes though, he's just wrong.

If fact, I respect and admire the profession of engineering. They are the skeleton that allows our culture to exist. Many of them wind up filling roles in the "nervous system" which is a good thing.

But there's something about the study that breads over-confidence that is often extrapolated into areas the really know very little about. And trust me, I did not invent this perspective. People who work with engineers know exactly what I am talking about.

You should meet some of the software engineers I work with sometime. Imagine that wrapped up with what is essentially a Nick Burns, your company computer guy.

[AUDub 11,158]

Where exactly did I claim " and(sic) engineer isn't a scientist"?

This was my claim, a long way back on like page 3.

[homersapien 11,393]

Are you really basing your case on the 97% - or 98% - or whatever claim of consensus?

Everyone who has made such a claim has some sort of research to back it up. But it doesn't really matter.

Estimates of the level of consensus is not really a scientific issue. All such estimates - regardless of supporting evidence - are simple polls which vary according to the methodology. Making such a claim then stating the methodology is not equivalent to making a technical scientific claim and then stating (peer-reviewed) research.

But the irony here is that it's such a self-defeating argument. There is clearly a huge majority - if not consensus - among the scientists in a position to express a learned opinion that AGW is a valid theory.

So what if the real number is 95% instead of 97%. Go ahead make a claim about how many relevant scientists support the theory, and show your work. Let's compare your methodology to Cooks and others.

Better yet, find the lowest estimate of scientific support you can find and present it.

If that's the biggest issue you can come up with regarding SkS's reliability you are really grasping at straws.

There is no 97% Consensus and there never was. Cook took 79 surveys out of the thousands mailed out, flat out lied about what the writers said, had deniers saying that they were supporting AGW, did some of the worst most biased research ever and when he got called out on it threatened to sue the hell out of the people that accessed his research that was not protected and wrote the truth that he was lying out his @$$, as per usual.

Cook is nothing more than a damn cartoonist. he has assembled a nice set of reference AGW Science material. I am NOT finding fault with him on the gathered data from real AGW Scientists. I am however saying loudly and proudly that he is a liar without peer when it comes to his own advocacy work. The 97% Claim was pure unadulterated that was not backed by the evidence. He called DENIERS "Supporters" in order to get the numbers he wanted. He lied about people's research. He has threatened those that expose his craziness with lawyers from UQ. His research was not protected at all on a public server but now he is all outraged by the bad publicity. He has altered quotes, altered support, lied about just about everything that has challenged him. He practices commando blogging with his little minions.

If you quote directly from the articles and never from him, i have NO problems with SkS. But he is a phony two bit con artist advocate that needs help.

Well, apparently I failed to make my points:

1) The issue of "consensus is not really a technical, scientific dispute, it's more of a political one. It does nothing to prove the actual theory, since scientific proof does not rely on consensus. Therefore , the consensus issue is not one that determines doubt about about the specific scientific issues such as atmospheric or ocean temperature ice coverage, etc., that SkS covers. They footnote everything.

2) But since SkS - as an advocacy site - lists the "consensus issue" as part of their portfolio of questions or assertions made by deniers they profess to address, it is a legitimate point of debate.

I personally suspect (not having done the research) there are plenty more studies about scientific consensus than the SkS one that is in dispute.

Maybe it's not 97%. Maybe its 95%. :-\ Anyway, I would prefer to make that a different thread because one of the classic denier tactics is to obfuscate the debate in hand (OP) is by changing the subject.

But whatever. All I can do is respond.

[AUDub 11,158]

2) But since SkS - as an advocacy site - lists the "consensus issue" as part of their portfolio of questions or assertions made by deniers, it is a legitimate point of debate. I personally suspect (not having done the research) there are plenty more studies about scientific consensus than the one that is in dispute. Maybe it's not 97%. Maybe its 95%. :-\/> Anyway, I would prefer to make that a different thread because one of the classic denier tactics is to obfuscate the debate in hand (OP) is by changing the subject.

But whatever. All I can do is respond.

Studies that have examined the consensus in depth:

Oreskes 2004

Doran and Zimmerman 2009

Anderegg, Prall, Harald and Schneider 2010

And the one DKW is hung up on, Cook et al 2013

[homersapien 11,393]

I always liked it phrased thusly. "One prefers the unknown. The other can't stand it."

To the scientist, it's the reason for being. To the engineer, it's a curse.

[homersapien 11,393]

Character attacks seem to evolve from career to academics to the debate team in here. Let's face it....pollution is bad, clean air is good....but fossil fuel is here for at least 100 years or more. Maybe we just need to plant a lot of trees and hope for the best...lol

I find it strange that you get so offended if an engineer gets his comeuppance after making an totally arrogant argument-from-authority based on his experience with modeling in a unrelated field, but never make mention of crude insults and name calling that is standard fare by certain posters.

Is "I used to have engineers for breakfast" really so much worse than "imbecile homo" or "pathetic piece of s***"?

You obviously have selective reading habits, mayor of starsville. If you can't see the trees for the forest then you can't be helped. I wasn't defending the engineer as much as I was defending against this practice of defamation you and your ilk continue to spew.

That's not much of a response.

06 comes on here and proclaims himself an authority and further states the science of AGW is an "insult to his profession".

I throw the same sort of arrogance right back at him and you claim I am "defaming" him? Like I said this is hardball, or it ought to be. If you can't handle the blowback, be careful of what you post. That goes equally for everyone.

I don't get it. It's defamation to give him little of his own medicine while it's OK to call someone a "pathetic piece of s***". But it's me and "my ilk" that are crossing the line?

Riiiight. :-\

Have you contributed anything productive to this? I think you mistook my statement of taking something as unknown and debatable as AGW and calling it science as arrogant. Others have apparently taken your expected response a lot worse than I have. If you are going to oppose something - try doing it in the fashion of BigBen. He is bringing real info. You just keep trying to act bigger than everyone else.....from behind a keyboard.

Well yeah..... :-\

Big Ben is my hero for good reasons! He apparently cares a lot more than I do.

[homersapien 11,393]

You are NOT a scientist...therefore you are just a numbers guy with the ability to create what others have come up with. lmao

I never said environmental engineers are scientists, but you have to take into account some of the experience and information they bring to the table...BigBen (of which I am a big fan of.....thanks for the two rings and three trips to the super bowl). lol

I can tell you a lot about electromagnetism and mechanics, if you're curious. Doesn't make me a physicist.

And just in case anybody has any doubt, I am not a climate scientist.

[homersapien 11,393]

You are NOT a scientist...therefore you are just a numbers guy with the ability to create what others have come up with. lmao

I never said environmental engineers are scientists, but you have to take into account some of the experience and information they bring to the table...BigBen (of which I am a big fan of.....thanks for the two rings and three trips to the super bowl). lol

I can tell you a lot about electromagnetism and mechanics, if you're curious. Doesn't make me a physicist.

No...but your experience and application make you a professional in your field.

Still a grease-monkey, not an egghead.

If there is one thing my career taught me is to listen and pay attention to the "grease-monkeys" at least as much as you do the eggheads (and engineers).