It’s A Crazy World: Be Thankful For Engineers! (How They Look at “Global Warming”)

Having been trained in the scientific method, it is both amazing and disheartening to be living in today’s modern era of “fake news.” Important — even critical — issues that affect our society are almost never discussed rationally on the major news outlets. Instead we are subjected to emotionally charged pontifications of politicians, bloggers, and those that call themselves journalists. It is bad enough that the aforementioned generally are incompetent with regard to the use of critical thinking, but compounding the matter immensely is the corruption of many in the science/engineering profession, who, in my opinion, have become all too happy to ignore proper science in return for the perks and privileges bestowed upon them by their masters in the political and governmental classes. But enough generalities, let’s look at “global warming” as a specific example

If one were to unskeptically follow the mainstream news, one would believe that man-made global warming (now often called “climate change”) is an undisputed fact. But let’s look at the issue from an engineering-thinking perspective:

1. Proponents say, “97% of scientists agree” that mankind is responsible for global warming, therefore man-made global warming is a fact.

Even if the 97% figure is true (I’m not sure that it is), the consensus argument is actually proof of ignorance by those who use it, because using consensus to support a position is the logical fallacy known as “argument by authority.”

Science is never determined by a vote of scientists. For example, I’ve never been in a design project meeting where the lead engineer said, “Okay, now let’s take a vote to see which design is correct.” Engineers know that design approaches are based on analysis and testing, not majority votes. One of my favorite true stories on relying on a vote of experts to determine the truth can be found here: “Advice From Professionals: Who Do You Trust? (Part 2)“. (Also see “Global Warming:Consensus Is Not Science.”.)

2. The predictions made by those who believe in man-made global warming have, thus far, been completely wrong; our earth has stubbornly failed to conform to those predictions.

When predicted results do not occur, instead of concluding that the warming hypothesis failed, we see excuses (“our model was a bit faulty”) followed by tweaking of the models. However I have yet to see where the new models are back-tested far enough to actually validate their accuracy; i.e. an accurate model will explain prior climate, as well as recent climate. Experienced engineers, who rely on rigorous analysis and testing, are familiar with the tendency of inexperienced engineers to “tweak and tune” simulation results until the desired result is obtained, regardless of how far the simulation may depart from reality.

Senior engineers may also try to fudge their data to salvage a failed design hypothesis, because engineers are human. That’s why engineers employ a peer review process, to guard against the natural foibles of fellow engineers.

3. There are many respected scientists who disagree with the man-made global warming hypothesis.

These experts offer alternate and reasonable hypotheses, such as the effects of the sun. Indeed, there are some who believe that we are on the cusp on entering a mini ice-age, based on climate correlation to lower solar activity (e.g., “Sun’s activity will cause global cooling“).

On the international stage, however, proponents of global warming try to shut down peer review by qualified dissenters. This is a clear sign that the warmist arguments will not withstand objective scrutiny.

For example, Australian climate expert Dr. David Evans found an error in the climate prediction model used by the warmists (“World will start COOLING DOWN in 2017, claims one of planet’s top climate change experts“), which shows that climate sensitivity to CO2 is small, which negates the “man-made” claim of the warmists.

4. “What can it hurt?” is offered as a reason to implement global warming reduction measures.

This plea is based on the theory that the consequences of warming would be so catastrophic that it is reasonable to have a global big-government effort to reduce CO2. This statement is based on many fallacies; e.g. “appeal to consequences,” “appeal to emotion,” and the “politician’s syllogism” that states “we must do something!” regardless of whether or not that measure will be an overreaction, ineffective, or even make things worse. It is also reflects superstitious and hysterical thinking.

Ironically, some respected scientists have argued that some warming (man-made or natural) is likely good for humanity because maintaining warmer climates helps produce the higher crop yields required for growing populations.

Summary

A majority consensus is not a scientific proof. Science will be determined by the facts, as supported by replicable analysis and test. In the meantime, respect should be afforded minority opinions; there are numerous times throughout the history of scientific advancement when a minority (and often ridiculed) opinion has become generally accepted wisdom. Also, scientific conclusions are rarely “settled,” they will be tentative or conditional, based on the best available evidence at the time.

Is man-made global warming occurring? I don’t know. I do know that the warmists have not proven their case, that they tend to use logical fallacies and emotionally-driven statements to promote their position, that their predictions continually fail (followed by model tweak “corrections” that are not validated by back-testing), that they use ridicule and other ad hominem attacks against qualified scientists who disagree with them, and that they also seem to be closely allied to governmental entities that provide them with salaries and perks, which suggests confirmation bias. And if the warmists are wrong, the consequences of imposing a solution for which no problem exists can not only potentially make matters worse, it can also result in gross economic distortions which cost jobs and drain resources that could otherwise be applied to actual problems, such as earth-threatening asteroids, severe damage to the ocean by nanoparticles and other modern pollutants, ebola and other plagues, etc.

Because engineers are applied scientists, they employ critical thinking to successfully create the wondrous things which make our lives comfortable and fun. They are pretty good at keeping emotions at bay, and are adept at evaluating claims in a skeptical yet open-minded manner. Engineers are also willing and able to change their opinions — pro or con — based on a careful evaluation of new claims. This ability to rationally, albeit sometimes imperfectly, evaluate a variety of issues is one of many reasons why I believe that engineers are often the best ones to evaluate the important issues of the day.

-Ed Walker

 

Green Energy Storage: We Can’t Get There with Batteries (Why Systems Analysis is Essential for Making Good Decisions)

“The Catch-22 of Energy Storage” by John Morgan is quite an article. It exemplifies proper systems analysis, which requires one to stand back and look at the overall Big Picture — examine all of the important variables — in order to improve the odds of arriving at a proper solution.

In brief, the point of the article is that using batteries for energy storage actually results in negative energy savings, when one properly considers the energy required to build and maintain the batteries.

It is quite amazing that — because of the lack of a proper systems analysis — enormous sums have been spent on what strongly appears to be a Quixotic attempt at achieving “green energy savings” based primarily on wishful thinking about batteries.

This is not a criticism of those who like wind or solar power, because those who do have been taught to favor those approaches by a media which is largely incompetent with regard to scientific matters, and corrupt with regard to political policy. This deadly brew has resulted in a culture which embraces emotionally-laden “feel good” pseudoscience at the expense of hard-nosed but effective solutions, solutions that may actually help the environment, as well as ease the pain of our overburdened taxpayers.

Related post: “Look the the Big Picture”

-Ed Walker

 

5 Big Reasons Why “Global Warming Is A Fact” Is A Lie

Is man-made global warming occurring? Despite what you may read or hear from the media, man-made global warming has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Here are five big reasons why:

1. Many experienced and credible scientists with good character do not believe that man-made global warming has been proved.

2. Proponents of man-made global warming claim that warming is a fact because of “consensus”; i.e they say that a majority of scientists agree that man-made global warming is happening. But consensus is a logical fallacy, and a sign of junk science. There have been numerous instances where a minority of scientists have ultimately been proven correct, regardless of the prevailing consensus of the day. Science is based on fact, not on a vote of scientists.

3. Proponents of man-made global warming, if they truly believed in their research and analysis, would welcome the views of skeptics, because only by such challenges does science eventually converge on the truth. Instead, many proponents of man-made global warming do not welcome criticism or skeptical inquiry, and instead wage personal attacks on the skeptics. (Personal attacks are an example of the “ad hominem” logical fallacy.)

4. Proponents of man-made global warming base their beliefs on data that cannot be replicated by other scientists.

5. Proponents of man-made global warming are continually adjusting the “models” they previously created and used for predicting today’s weather, when today’s weather is not what was predicted by their earlier models. And rather than admit failure, the proponents try to obscure that fact by making up excuses and continually tinkering with their models.

A couple of interesting and thorough overviews of the junk science underlying the proponents of global warming can be found here (both by Robert Wagner):

“Global Warming ‘Science’; What Investors Need To Know, Don’t Just Trust The “Experts”

“Climate ‘Science’ Bombshell May Be Getting Ready To Burst”

The following recent article is also of interest:

“The game is up for climate change believers” by Charles Moore.

(Be sure to check the comments at the end of the article by Exton, “Word of the Environmentalist.”)

p.s. I’m finding less time to compose in-depth posts, so am trying to provide brief updates of interesting news bites through twitter, which you can follow here: http://twitter.com/engthinking

-Ed Walker

 

Global Warming: Consensus Is Not Science

Proponents of the idea of human-induced global warming often claim that there is an overwhelming consensus among scientists that such warming is a fact. For example, consider this recent article:

Consensus Confirmed: 97 Percent of Climate Papers Agree on Manmade Global Warming
by Brendan DeMelle, 22 June 2013 Huff Post Green

“A new survey conducted by a team of volunteers at Skeptical Science has definitively confirmed the scientific consensus in climate science literature — 97 percent of peer-reviewed papers agree that global warming is happening and human activities are responsible.

“It does not get any clearer than this. It should finally put to rest the claims of climate deniers that there is a scientific debate about global warming. Of course, this bunch isn’t known for being reasonable or susceptible to facts. But maybe the mainstream media outlets that have given deniers a megaphone will finally stop…”

The problem with grandiose statements such as the one above is that consensus is simply a collection of opinions, it is not scientific proof. In fact, when “consensus” is presented as “proof” then you can be sure that the presenters do not actually have verifiable proof. Instead they are merely practicing junk science.

And what about the opinions of those scientists who hold a minority view? Should their opinions be ignored because they have less votes than the majority? No, of course not. The role of true science is to determine which group is correct.

Science converges on the truth by requiring that scientists provide verifiable
evidence of a hypothesis, not by counting scientists’ votes for or against the hypothesis

Still not convinced? I agree that it may seem intuitive that scientists’ beliefs, as confirmed by a consensus of their peers, should be used to guide us when proof is not available. But this is just gambling; there have been numerous times throughout scientific history when the consensus of scientists has been completely wrong. For example, at one time the near-unanimous consensus of doctors was that it was perfectly fine to perform their work without first washing their hands: see “Advice From Professionals: Who Do You Trust? (Part 2).” (For other reasons to be cautious about allowing intuition to be our guide, see “Why Not Go With The Gut?“)

Bottom line: Those who promote “consensus” as being equivalent to a scientific proof do not understand how science works, and should be ignored.

-Ed Walker

 

Is Man-Made Global Warming A Scientific Fact? Not So Fast, NASA

Despite what you may hear from many, including supposedly reputable sources such as NASA, the notion that mankind is causing global warming is not yet settled science.

“Fifty top astronauts, scientists and engineers at NASA have signed a letter asking the agency to cease its global warming buffoonery.” -from “NASA rocked by global warming rebellion” by Thomas Lifson in the 11 April 2011 issue of American Thinker.

 

ET EXTRA UPDATE: Man-Made Global Warming? Apparently Not

Scientists at the CERN particle-physics laboratory in Geneva have recently presented results that tend to confirm that the Big Gorilla affecting the earth’s temperature is — the sun. The results appear to be based on good science, and accordingly have created a commotion amongst the “man is causing global warming” crowd that appears to be motivated more by a lust for government money than the search for the truth. (Also see the earlier ET post, “Globaloney Warming,” and “Global Warming” in the 3rd Quarter 2008 DACI Newsletter).

A nice summary of the reactions to the CERN results can be found here: “Sun Causes Climate Change Shock” by James Delingpole, 27 Aug 2011, The Telegraph

-Ed Walker

 

Man-Made Global Warming A Scientific Fact? Not So Fast

Excerpts from “Update: 59 Additional Scientists Join Senate Report…More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims“:

“Fifty-nine additional scientists from around the world have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists, pushing the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists – a dramatic increase from the original 650 scientists featured in the initial December 11, 2008 release. The 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority report since the initial release 13 ½ weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week.  This updated report – which includes yet another former UN IPCC scientist – represents an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial report’s release in December 2007.

“The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The 59 additional scientists hail from all over the world, including Japan, Italy, UK, Czech Republic, Canada, Netherlands, the U.S. and many are affiliated with prestigious institutions including, NASA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, U.S. Air Force, the Philosophical Society of Washington (the oldest scientific society in Washington), Princeton University, Tulane University, American University, Oregon State University, U.S. Naval Academy and EPA.”

Science and the public are not well-served when scientists succumb to the financial rewards offered by the government in return for touting politically correct views, rather than true science. Fortunately — as indicated by the uncorruptable scientists mentioned above — science has a correcting mechanism, albeit a lagging one, which tends to elevate the truth over the self-serving interests of scientists that are corrupted by government grants.

-Ed Walker

 

Hunt The Big Gorillas

Climate Change, Birthers, and Chocolate

Engineering Thinking includes some key concepts, or sub-principles, that engineers use to improve the chance of making a good decision. One of these is called sensitivity analysis. This is simply a methodical way of separating the wheat from the chaff, or a way of detecting what is truly important and allowing trivial distractions to be dismissed.

Sensitivity analysis can be described as the hunt for the Big Gorillas. A Big Gorilla is a dominant factor that swamps out all other factors. If you are trying to make an important decision — for example, the purchase of a car — you have many things to consider, such as cost, gas mileage, reliability, warranty, styling, etc. If you examine all these factors, or variables, and happen to spot one that is so large that all the other factors become negligible by comparison, you have found a Big Gorilla, and can use it to quickly arrive at a good decision.

For example, a quick household budget review may tell you that you simply can’t afford a car, new or used. This budgetary Big Gorilla is telling you there’s no point in worrying about all the other variables; why waste your time?

But perhaps you can afford a used auto, and are tempted by the price sticker on a sleek sports car offered by a certain dealership. You do some research and find that the dealer can’t be trusted. The Big Gorilla — lack of trustworthiness — tells you that you had better have an independent mechanic check out the car before you buy, and also to review the contract very carefully. Or better yet, walk away and take your business to a reputable merchant.

In issues involving human behavior, the Big Gorilla is often a major motivation that someone tries to hide from view. Therefore it’s a good idea to be skeptical of surface factors when dealing with glib humans.

Remember those times when, after listening to someone’s complaints, assertions, or boasts, you had the uncomfortable feeling that the comments didn’t ring true? That’s your cue to look for a hidden Big Gorilla.

Dig Deep Enough,
And You Will Find A Compelling Reason

For example, the “climate change” debate is not at all settled science; there are huge numbers of highly qualified skeptics. Yet proponents claim that the science is settled, and have made many efforts to silence or discredit the skeptics. This should raise an alarm, and prompt a hunt for hidden Big Gorillas. A little research indicates that climate change proponents, by and large, tend to be governmental employees, or employees of firms that are funded by the government. Financial motivation is a major Big Gorilla, and may explain why some proponents try so hard to silence the skeptics: their salaries and status are threatened if their views on climate change are undermined. Another factor: scientists that are not corrupted by a hidden agenda do not try to silence fellow scientists, but instead welcome them to a hearty debate.

On a smaller matter, consider the issue concerning President Obama’s birth certificate, where some folks (the “birthers”) claim that the president is not a U.S. citizen. This seems like a ridiculous notion, and most evidence indicates that it is indeed ridiculous.  However, one fairly unpublicized factor strikes me as a perplexing Big Gorilla: the president has apparently expended hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal efforts to deny access to his original birth records. Why? Big Gorillas always point to a significant truth. In this case, it may not be related to citizenship, but there must be some significant reason for those large legal fees.

A Big Gorilla can exhibit itself in amusing ways. Some years ago, my then small daughter April bought her Dad a birthday gift of a small box of chocolates. This was at first puzzling, since I didn’t eat chocolates. In fact, being health-conscious, we usually had no candy in the house. The hidden Big Gorilla, of course, was a child’s self-interest.  My little daughter had found a clever way around the candy embargo, by purchasing a “gift for Dad” that she promptly consumed.

Next post: More Engineering Thinking Concepts

-Ed Walker

 

 

ET EXTRA: Fraud And The Global Warming Debate

Engineering Thinking Extra Is A Short Review Of A Current Hot Topic

It is now becoming apparent that a massive fraud has been underway regarding the debate over global warming. (For a good summary see this article by James Delingpole in the Telegraph.co.uk.)

As a result, Engineering Extra is sad but compelled to assign its highest Five Jacks Shameful Behavior rating to those scientists and engineers who have been involved in such a monumental betrayal of the public trust. If not exposed, this betrayal may have led to unscientifically-sound legislation (“cap and trade”) and EPA regulations, which could cost billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs.

As pointed out in an earlier post (see Scientific Sins in “Advice From Professionals: Who Do You Trust? (Part 2)“), engineers and scientists are not immune to corruption. Normally, however, such corruption tends to be weeded out over time by the scientific method.

But what about the Global Warming fraud? How did this happen? It happened because the work of these renegade scientists was funded by the government, which is not subject to the scientific method.

By contrast, engineers and scientists who work in the private sector are disciplined by the competitive nature of the marketplace. False data or exaggerated claims will be gleefully exposed by competitors, appropriately causing the fraudulent firm to lose profits and possibly face bankruptcy. In the private sector, therefore, there is a strong and ongoing survival incentive to root out junk science.

But scientific organizations that receive all or most of their funding from the government have no competition, ergo they have no long-term concerns about market competitiveness. To the contrary, some employees of such firms — in order to maintain their jobs and secure promotions — provide their political masters whatever it is that those masters wish to hear, regardless of whether or not it drifts from the truth.

To Minimize Corruption,
Science and Engineering Should Be Performed
By Competitive Enterprises,
Not By The Government

Corollary:

Scientific Advice To The Government Should Be Provided
By Private Firms Through Competitive Bidding,
Not By Government Employees

-Ed Walker