Global Warming Pause May Disappear.

[homersapien 11,373]

Ice Core Samples Ice Core Samples!!!!!! I must have broke one of you earlier...

It was about time for another random Ice Core Sample mention. We had a bunch earlier for no apparent freakin reason...You guys kill me.

http://wattsupwithth...cook-making-up/

Just one example of the many many frauds on SkS...Of course no one in the sewing circle cares about the fraud there that goes on. Not one person, even when it is as factual as can be, no one cares. It doesnt fit the mindless PC mantra.

Seriously? :-\

So SkS used “reposition fact as theory” instead of "reposition global warming as theory (rather than fact)”

That's the best you can do to discredit SkS?

http://notrickszone....h.ZX3O2Rdq.dpbs

John Cook is a Fraud

https://stevengoddar...ook-is-a-fraud/

John Cook Is A Fraud

https://stevengoddar...k-is-a-fraud-2/

Cook was banking on Obama’s ignorance of statistics. Either that or Obama’s eagerness to have some fraudulent statistics generated for him.

As Joseph points out, the 98 percent came from 79 respondents of the 10,257 surveys that were sent out. That is hardly a number I would rely on.

http://www.omsj.org/...consensus-claim

But as more independent analysts look into Cook’s claims the less reliable they seem. Another scientist quick to report being misrepresented by the new study is Dr. Nicola Scafetta who spoke of the “ utter dishonesty” at work. While Dr. Nir J. Shaviv of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, when asked whether Cook’s study reliably reported his paper, replied “Nope… it is not an accurate representation.”

http://wattsupwithth...l-warming-meme/

John Cook’s Skeptical Science effort to the advocacy disguised as science going on at the University of Western Australia with Stephan Lewandowsky. Since this was sent using the University of Queenslands public network resource, it is fair game for posting, especially since no caveats for disclosure of the survey are given in the invitation letter.

I found the methodology of the sample selection quite ridiculous:

Our search of the ISI Web of Science database has found X of your papers published between 1991 and 2011 matching the search phrases ‘global warming’ or ‘global climate change’ (noting that due to the specific search parameters, it’s possible that some of your papers may not be included).

It’s not essential that you are an expert in attribution of global warming

...in Cook’s world, they simply don’t care if you are an expert or not if you have an opinion on global warming/climate change. Such hypocrisy. I suppose we can call this the “cartoonist clause” since Mr. Cook is a cartoonist by trade.

http://www.thenewame...consensus-fraud

Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud

http://daviddfriedma...VVk72WlqW7kbrWs

his 97% figure ignored the roughly two-thirds of papers that took no position on AGW.

http://www.forbes.co...nsensus-claims/

Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

Here Forbes shows you that John Cook of SkS actually quoted the work of known skeptics as writing in support of the Fraudulent 97% claim.

http://joannenova.co...you-discuss-it/

Cook’s work is obviously impeccable (except for the part about 97% being really 0.3%), but evidently it uses a special new kind of “open data”. The exact date and time each anonymized reviewer reviewed a sacred scientific abstract is commercial and must be kept secret. These volunteer reviewers allegedly stand to, er … lose a lot of money if that data is revealed (they won’t be employed again for no money?). Such is the importance of this that the University of Queensland left the data on secret-secret forum protected by no passwords and then put urls to it on secret forums that were publicly accessible. Brandon Shollenberger had the genius idea of changing the numbers in the url +1, +1, and +1, and voila! For the crime of finding unhidden non-secret data Brandon received a threatening legal letter, and expects the Feds to arrive any minute. You can’t just type any old numbers into a url.

If you read this site, dont drink. It is too funny being sued by the UQ and then having them disavow any knowledge of SkS work even though it is unprotected on a UQ Server. You cant make this crap up.

No indication was given the project was tied in any way to the University of Queensland. The data was stored on a third-party website. If the University of Queensland owns this data, there’s nothing to indicate it.

Naturally, if the data doesn’t belong to the University of Queensland, it cannot have the supposed contractual obligations regarding it. Let’s assume, however, it does own the data. Let’s also assume the University of Queensland had the obligations it claims to have had. If those things are true, why was the data stored on a publicly accessible, third-party website? Wouldn’t that failure to protect the data amount to a violation of the supposed contractual obligations?

Finally Brandon asks about the study data he holds related to a paper on key-words used in scientific abstracts and published as “creative commons”:

“

Tell me what material I possess could cause harm if disseminated. Tell me what agreements or contractual obligations would be impinged upon if that material were released to the public.

“

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.

[homersapien 11,373]

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.

Panic? :-\ What panic?

Seems you are shifting your argument from the science to the politics. Smart move on your part.

[homersapien 11,373]

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. :-\

[Strychnine 1,802]

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. :-\

Don't forget that you frequently get called "homo".

[autigeremt 6,624]

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.....

[AUDub 11,148]

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***."

[autigeremt 6,624]

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.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

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 believe that you are wrong. Challenging someone's self-proclaimed expertise, is not equivalent to a petty personal insult. The narrative you are attempting to further is simply not true.

[autigeremt 6,624]

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.

[DKW 86 7,424]

Ice Core Samples Ice Core Samples!!!!!! I must have broke one of you earlier...

It was about time for another random Ice Core Sample mention. We had a bunch earlier for no apparent freakin reason...You guys kill me.

http://wattsupwithth...cook-making-up/

Just one example of the many many frauds on SkS...Of course no one in the sewing circle cares about the fraud there that goes on. Not one person, even when it is as factual as can be, no one cares. It doesnt fit the mindless PC mantra.

Seriously? :-\

So SkS used “reposition fact as theory” instead of "reposition global warming as theory (rather than fact)”

That's the best you can do to discredit SkS?

http://notrickszone....h.ZX3O2Rdq.dpbs

John Cook is a Fraud

https://stevengoddar...ook-is-a-fraud/

John Cook Is A Fraud

https://stevengoddar...k-is-a-fraud-2/

Cook was banking on Obama’s ignorance of statistics. Either that or Obama’s eagerness to have some fraudulent statistics generated for him.

As Joseph points out, the 98 percent came from 79 respondents of the 10,257 surveys that were sent out. That is hardly a number I would rely on.

http://www.omsj.org/...consensus-claim

But as more independent analysts look into Cook’s claims the less reliable they seem. Another scientist quick to report being misrepresented by the new study is Dr. Nicola Scafetta who spoke of the “ utter dishonesty” at work. While Dr. Nir J. Shaviv of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, when asked whether Cook’s study reliably reported his paper, replied “Nope… it is not an accurate representation.”

http://wattsupwithth...l-warming-meme/

John Cook’s Skeptical Science effort to the advocacy disguised as science going on at the University of Western Australia with Stephan Lewandowsky. Since this was sent using the University of Queenslands public network resource, it is fair game for posting, especially since no caveats for disclosure of the survey are given in the invitation letter.

I found the methodology of the sample selection quite ridiculous:

Our search of the ISI Web of Science database has found X of your papers published between 1991 and 2011 matching the search phrases ‘global warming’ or ‘global climate change’ (noting that due to the specific search parameters, it’s possible that some of your papers may not be included).

It’s not essential that you are an expert in attribution of global warming

...in Cook’s world, they simply don’t care if you are an expert or not if you have an opinion on global warming/climate change. Such hypocrisy. I suppose we can call this the “cartoonist clause” since Mr. Cook is a cartoonist by trade.

http://www.thenewame...consensus-fraud

Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud

http://daviddfriedma...VVk72WlqW7kbrWs

his 97% figure ignored the roughly two-thirds of papers that took no position on AGW.

http://www.forbes.co...nsensus-claims/

Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

Here Forbes shows you that John Cook of SkS actually quoted the work of known skeptics as writing in support of the Fraudulent 97% claim.

http://joannenova.co...you-discuss-it/

Cook’s work is obviously impeccable (except for the part about 97% being really 0.3%), but evidently it uses a special new kind of “open data”. The exact date and time each anonymized reviewer reviewed a sacred scientific abstract is commercial and must be kept secret. These volunteer reviewers allegedly stand to, er … lose a lot of money if that data is revealed (they won’t be employed again for no money?). Such is the importance of this that the University of Queensland left the data on secret-secret forum protected by no passwords and then put urls to it on secret forums that were publicly accessible. Brandon Shollenberger had the genius idea of changing the numbers in the url +1, +1, and +1, and voila! For the crime of finding unhidden non-secret data Brandon received a threatening legal letter, and expects the Feds to arrive any minute. You can’t just type any old numbers into a url.

If you read this site, dont drink. It is too funny being sued by the UQ and then having them disavow any knowledge of SkS work even though it is unprotected on a UQ Server. You cant make this crap up.

No indication was given the project was tied in any way to the University of Queensland. The data was stored on a third-party website. If the University of Queensland owns this data, there’s nothing to indicate it.

Naturally, if the data doesn’t belong to the University of Queensland, it cannot have the supposed contractual obligations regarding it. Let’s assume, however, it does own the data. Let’s also assume the University of Queensland had the obligations it claims to have had. If those things are true, why was the data stored on a publicly accessible, third-party website? Wouldn’t that failure to protect the data amount to a violation of the supposed contractual obligations?

Finally Brandon asks about the study data he holds related to a paper on key-words used in scientific abstracts and published as “creative commons”:

“

Tell me what material I possess could cause harm if disseminated. Tell me what agreements or contractual obligations would be impinged upon if that material were released to the public.

“

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.

[AUDub 11,148]

...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.

[autigeremt 6,624]

...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.

[AUDub 11,148]

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.

*SNIP*

Well, I haven't seen it. If there are examples, point them out.

In fact, it seems like you breezed right by one in the thread right below this one. Where's your outrage? Proud calls Homer a "pathetic POS,"

(just going to move past the back and forth)

Homer questions an engineer's qualifications in a field outside his area of expertise?

I'd say someone overstepped their bounds. Lock it down mods.....personal attacks and degrading comments about ones academic standing as it relates to a subject like this is irresponsible and not at all the actions represented in the Auburn Creed. This crap needs to stop now!

And you didn't even get it right! Academic standing! Hah!

Selective outrage much?

[AUDub 11,148]

...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.

[Weegle777 78]

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.

[AUDub 11,148]

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

Well, don't you feel smart?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

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!

[autigeremt 6,624]

...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.

[AUDub 11,148]

...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."

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Anyone remember Ravaha. He was a civil engineer. We should get his opinion. You have to admit, it would be entertaining!

[AUDub 11,148]

Anyone remember Ravaha. He was a civil engineer. We should get his opinion. You have to admit, it would be entertaining!

I find myself wondering where he might have gone from time to time. When was the last time he logged on?

[AUDub 11,148]

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.

[AUcivE09 582]

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.

[Weegle777 78]

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

Well, don't you feel smart?

:tease:/>

Feel? I are smart.

[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