Bill whittle provides a resource
May. 1st, 2012 03:51 amBill whittle's latest installment mentioned that Burt Rutan had weighed in on the "global warming" discussion.
Burt Rutan, in case any of my readers are unaware is the guy that designed and built the Spaceship one spacecraft, and designed and built the voyager airplane that flew nonstop around the world. He is an absolute genius, pioneer, and generally a hero of the mind. So when I heard that he had taken a stance on a thing, I am inclined to pay attention, this is a guy that does things that *work*.
I started reading, and the first thing that jumped out at me is the title. "An Engineer‟s Critique of Global Warming „Science‟" Now, this is something that I have been struggling with for decades. As many of you know, I am a civil engineer. In engineering, things have to *work*, so we are far far more parsimonious with what we accept as valid. We do not have the luxury of simply saying "well, the science *should* work out", no, people die when engineers do that, so we accept only theories that have survived *extensive* testing, models that have proven exhaustively that they predict accurately, etcetera.
Anyway, this powerpoint is worth the perusing if anyone's interested in why a well-educated intelligent person remains a skeptic on AGW.
http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdf
Burt Rutan, in case any of my readers are unaware is the guy that designed and built the Spaceship one spacecraft, and designed and built the voyager airplane that flew nonstop around the world. He is an absolute genius, pioneer, and generally a hero of the mind. So when I heard that he had taken a stance on a thing, I am inclined to pay attention, this is a guy that does things that *work*.
I started reading, and the first thing that jumped out at me is the title. "An Engineer‟s Critique of Global Warming „Science‟" Now, this is something that I have been struggling with for decades. As many of you know, I am a civil engineer. In engineering, things have to *work*, so we are far far more parsimonious with what we accept as valid. We do not have the luxury of simply saying "well, the science *should* work out", no, people die when engineers do that, so we accept only theories that have survived *extensive* testing, models that have proven exhaustively that they predict accurately, etcetera.
Anyway, this powerpoint is worth the perusing if anyone's interested in why a well-educated intelligent person remains a skeptic on AGW.
http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdf