CAGW - Maybe Not - Burt Rutan Opines

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--A very interesting presentation by aircraft and spacecraft designer Burt Rutan, replete with graphs. Warning, do not bother to view this presentation if you already think that there are no facts which can refute or weaken the CAGW theory. See below link.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/26/another-wuwt-tv-segment-engineer-and-aviation-pioneer-burt-rutan-on-why-he-doubts-global-warming/

--I hope Burt did not design that shelf.

Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people."
William Claude Dukenfield, W. C. Fields 1880 1946

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[saturation]

A critical analysis of data with dubious causality or very likely simple associative relationships will lead to a dubious conclusion.  You cannot treat climate data like engineering data, a plane or devices either work or not when the test comes, but for climate testing a fix would take almost a lifetime to prove, and likely another lifetime to fix if the conclusions turn out to be wrong.  Since we all live in the same planet, can we put ourselves at risk based on the judgment of a few?  So the solution is a vote on whether the people who will suffer the consequences thinks its true or not.

I think, if its human caused a human solution can mitigate it, such as the effects of the ozone layer.  If its not human caused, but a natural cycle of the earth, we are only worse off by spending money on it.  But even if not man made, the effort and technology to correct it could eliminate or forestall a hot period in earth's natural cycle regardless, so in the end we will learn a process that could be used for future terraforming.

[poptones]

Why risk going to hell if all we have to do is believe in the climate Jesus?

[saturation]

... unlike religion it involves only the individual involved [ at least so the religion says]; for climate issue the effects of a wrong decision by a individual affects all people living in the area affected, if the phenomena is true.

Why risk going to hell if all we have to do is believe in the climate Jesus?

[poptones]

And like religion, the "proof" is all cherry picked "statistics" and conjecture about something not understood.

People believe in this nonsense because other people believe the nonsense. It's religion. And every time someone dissents, the believers tell the non believers how the proof is right there - they just need to believe...

[Mechatrommer]

And like religion, the "proof" is all cherry picked "statistics" and conjecture about something not understood.

"statistics" is a well accepted scientific and mathematical method for concluding something not understood. accepted by religious or unreligious man, so which side are you?

[tom66]

I suppose you can't prove that electrons exist, either? After all, you can't see them.

Similar statistics have been used for very powerful purposes -- one example was Nate Silver's very accurate prediction of the election result., based on "noisy" poll data.

[poptones]

"statistics" is a well accepted scientific and mathematical method...

Of proving just about anything based on cherry picked data. How many times have we read about "proofs" of things liek global floods and meteors causing the oceans to divide and any number of supernatural phenomena?

This is stupid. Global warming proofs consist entirely of cherry picked data and anytime someone shows factual records of hundreds of thousands of years that dispute this nonsense - based on data from those very same sources but NOT cherry picked - the "believers" discount it saying it's too complex for us mere mortals to grasp but these scientists must surely be right because, after all, they're scientists and we're not.

Then, soon as one scientist breaks ranks, those same "mere mortals" say well, he's one of many and everyone else disagrees so he must be wrong. Meanwhile, the priests, bent on protecting their research grants and their reputations, do all they can do discredit the heretic.

It's all religious bullshit.

[Mechatrommer]

so you are mixing up "cherry picked" and "statistics". the real "statistics" is not "cherry picked" and "a real science". the "cherry picked" one is religious nuts fanboyism, not "statistics".

[poptones]

ROTFL. Any more assertions you'd like to offer as valid arguments?

400 fucking thousand years. Up and down. Nothing new to see here, folks.