It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


An engineer's critique of global warming "Science"

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:35 PM
reply to post by tiger5

But he mentions scientists in the end of that article that he has been influenced by and which opinions and ideas he expresses. Surely you have at least scanned that text (pdf)?

Pleases do if you are to discuss details of it further.
edit on 3/1/2011 by archasama because: correction

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:43 PM
reply to post by Movescamp

I agree.

I liked what Josh Fox (the creator of documentary "GasLand") asked to some guy of big gas company.
Gas company had replaced some people's wells with water reservoirs - because they were so polluted that the water wasn't drinkable and it was even flammable - full of natural gas and loads of chemicals.

So then Josh Fox asked - "Can you replace a stream?"

Can we?

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:12 PM
reply to post by JohhnyBGood

That's a completely unfounded assumption. A lot of climateologist are physicists. A lot. One of my best friends graduated from the university of Chicago with a full scholarship as well as Magill undergrad in sub atomic physics and quantum mechanics. He is now doing weather modeling. All of his colleagues have multiple degrees in all kinds of sciences. A lot of the work is designing simulation software using advanced mathematics. So yeah your statement is false.

On the other hand a lot of climateologists are engineers too. There is no reason a person can't cross over into any field if they have the desire. Bucky fuller never even finished college and he was inventing molecular compounds.

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:18 PM
reply to post by Movescamp

Let me cut to the chase scene for you: It's a job title, not an educational path. Translation: You, too, can be a Climatologist! But act now, and if you call within the next 20 minutes, we'll double the job title to "Climatologist II"! But, wait, there’s more! ...

Well, let's go more specific, shall we? The primary author of an oft-cited study supporting Algore's View of Earth is Dr. Peter Doran. His study is one of the scriptures in the refrain, “There is a consensus among climatologists.” Education: B.Sc., Trent University; M.Sc., Queen's University; Ph.D., University of Nevada-Reno. The degrees are in Geology and Hydrology, but not assigned. His co-writer was Maggie Kendall Zimmerman. She was one of his graduate students. Can't find her degrees - but no Ph.D. Not a “climatology” degree in the lot. Go figure. So does UIC have a "Climatology" major? Nope. Closest thing is Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. I could go through every single paper presented as proof of Algore's Earth View written by "climatologists" searching in vain for a "climatology" degree. Not there. The reason is because the very first such degree program in the world took students in just 2001. I checked the University of Minnesota site because those were the fools that were going to give Algore an Honorary Doctorate in Climatology. Their "doctorate in climatology" (the real one) is a Ph.D. in Soil Science with two additional required courses: Environmental Biophysics and Ecology; and Biometeorology. With all the evidence in, it seems the term "Climatologist" is an industry term without much pedagogy behind it.

as for those calling themselves 'climate scientists' - that can be anyone who manages to get thier pet project funded by attaching a (pro) GW angle to it, however spurious!

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:47 PM
reply to post by JohhnyBGood

There are quacks in every field. I can tell you your barking up the wrong tree I can give you a million examples to contradict tour statement. You will loose this one bud. Go to Wikileaks type in list of climate scientists and you will find hundreds of phds in all areas of science. I have a feeling facts don't matter to you but seriously look it up. Professors are nearly always phd s who have been published. So think what you want but starting with the very first person on the list.
Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at University of Oxford's Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department. Lead author, IPCC Third Assessment Report. Review editor, Fourth Assessment Report.

Not going to list hundreds but anyway your cynical for good reason cap and trade is a scam. Climate change is not however. It's like saying pollution doesn't exsist.

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 06:39 PM
I like Burt Rutan take on global warming.
Its strange how many of the post against global warming with data that i have posted here on ATS are almost identical in conclusion.

Its strange how his engineering background leads him to the same results as i get looking at it from a paleoclimate and geologists point of view.

As a geologists i have to go by data to map and predict ore bodies and know paleoclimate to find sedimentary ore bodies.

As a exploratory geologist you have to know paleoclimatology.
Oil geologist have to know paleoclimatology as oil field are directly link to the climate's effect on the earth.
Many geologist don't have degrees in paleoclimatology but we worked with it every day in studying core samples and erosion patterns that locked oil or mineral into minable deposits.

History always repeats itself, The climate of earth always repeats its self and leaves behind a chart in the rocks it lays down,
geologist can read that chart and find all the paleoclimate changes written there

oil field geologist work directly with paleoclimatology as oil field are directly link to the climate's effect on the earth.
Many geologist don't have degrees in paleoclimatology but we worked with it every day in studying core samples and erosion patterns that locked oil or mineral into mine able deposits.

History always repeats itself, The climate of earth always repeats its self and leaves behind a chart in the rocks it lays down,
geologist can read that chart and find all the paleoclimate changes written there.

Climatologist are working in the future and can only make guesses. and few look at paleoclimate data far enough back to guess right,

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 08:27 PM
reply to post by ANNED

The flaw with that logic is it only proves the earth goes through cycles. It in no way proves that climate isn't effected by wiping out species and clear cutting forests. It's like saying comets slamming into the earth don't cause climate change because the earth has natural cycles. It's flawed logic. Unless you can prove the human beings don't impact the earth at all you can't prove anything. I would say we have done massive environmental damage and wiping out even plankton or letting invasive bacteria and algea in aqua culture can change climate. In a chain reaction of events that eventually lead to weather.

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:09 PM

Originally posted by archasama
Here's Burt Rutan questioning catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
Please read the whole presentation/article and I will be waiting to exchange opinions with you.

Here,read all these
articles. They are genreic coutners to CLimate change doubters.
edit on 3-1-2011 by I_AM_that_I_AM because: to better make my post.

posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 03:26 AM
reply to post by I_AM_that_I_AM

Answer me to this:

When some people say that it is getting colder in their area - Church of Climate Change says that

Does this even deserve an answer?
If we must...

The chaotic nature of weather means that no conclusion about climate can ever be drawn from a single data point, hot or cold. The temperature of one place at one time is just weather, and says nothing about climate, much less climate change, much less again global climate change.

Well, ok, than how about Ice Core Samples - upon which supposedly the whole theory is based upon?
Aren't they just few select data points.


posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 07:46 AM
A most excellent essay by Burt Rutan. Highly recommended to those who smell something fishy about the mass hysteria for AGW.

I loved the bit at the end taken from Lovelock interviews:

Excerpted from Frank Davis, „Lovelock Walks Away‟
Dr. Lovelock in 2006:
“We are responsible and will suffer the consequences of Global Warming”
Dr. Lovelock in 2007:
“By 2040, the Sahara will be moving into Europe, and Berlin will be as hot as
Baghdad. Phoenix will become uninhabitable. By 2100, the Earth‟s population
will be culled from today‟s 6.6 billion to as few as 500 million, with most of the
survivors…in Iceland, Scandinavia, the Arctic”.
Dr. Lovelock in 2008:
“… global warming is now irreversible, and nothing can prevent large parts of
the planet becoming too hot to inhabit, or sinking underwater… famine and
Dr. James Lovelock Now - March 2010:
At London‟s Science Museum Dr Lovelock said: “If we hadn‟t appeared on the
earth, it would be due to go through another ice age… greenhouse gases that
have warmed the planet are likely to prevent a big freeze….We‟re just fiddling
around. It is worth thinking that what we are doing in creating all these carbon
emissions, far from being something frightful, is stopping the onset of a new ice
age….we can look at our part as holding that up…..I hate all this business about
feeling guilty about what we‟re doing…..We‟re not guilty, we never intended to
pump CO2 into the atmosphere, it‟s just something we did.”
He compared today‟s climate change controversy to the “wildly inaccurate”
early work on aerosol gases and their alleged role in depletion of the ozone
layer: ”Quite often, observations done by hand are accurate but all the
theoretical stuff in between tends to be very dodgy and I think they are seeing
this with climate change….We haven‟t learned the lessons of the ozone-hole
debate. It‟s important to know just how much you have got to be careful”
"I think you have to accept that the skeptics have kept us sane….They have
been a breath of fresh air. They have kept us from regarding the science of
climate change as a religion. It has gone too far that way. There is a role for
skeptics in science. They shouldn't be brushed aside. It is clear that the „angel
side‟ wasn't without sin”.
From Frank Davis - Perhaps this is what happens when people realize they're
wrong. They start talking as if they'd always urged caution, had always warned
of the danger of inaccurate scientific predictions and manipulated data.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in