IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Utter poppycock
Topic Summary: Climate change: transformation technologies
Created On: 22 August 2012 09:35 PM
Status: Post and Reply
Related E&T article: Transformation technologies
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 22 August 2012 09:35 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rodgoslin

Posts: 2
Joined: 26 October 2009

I don't think that I've ever read such utter drivel in all my life. For the writers information, climate change has always been with us, and for millenia before 'us' arrived. How any intelligent person with even a grain of common sense can come out with such rubbish is quite beyond me. Having started badly the article goes on to present unproven and largely suspect theory as 'fact', reaching higher and higher levels of hyperbole in something that is even becoming obvious to the man in the street, as complete bunkum. How anyone in what should be a rational publication can come out with this speaks volumes in demonstrating how low the level of rational thought has come in the management of the countries industries. As someone who has worked in industry for the whole of his life, I weep.

Edited: 30 August 2012 at 06:44 PM by IET Moderator
 23 August 2012 01:57 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



robmercel

Posts: 34
Joined: 13 October 2007

Unfortunately I have seen worse drivel but point taken. It is extremely disappointing to see a technology magazine present a politically motivated hypothesis as fact but sadly not uncommon.
The author demonstrates his ignorance of the issues by quoting Rajendra Pachauri. It was Pachauri who accused glaciologist V K Raina of practising 'voodoo science' for daring to question the accuracy of an IPCC report in the 'glaciergate' fiasco. Raina was correct. The error was huge and had in fact been brought to the attention of the IPCC by several reviewers before the report was published but the report authors couldn't let the truth get in the way of a good scare story.
 23 August 2012 10:22 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbm

Posts: 3
Joined: 18 January 2003

The problem with submitting this sort of article to an engineering magazine is that the vast majority of engineers are aware of the analytical process known as "The Scientific Method".

As such, they are capable of recognising the (multiple) logical fallacies in the article, especially "begging the question", and of despairing that "such utter drivel", as rodgoslin so eloquently put it, was accepted for publication.

It will be interesting to see if the negative reactions to this article are given as much prominence in a future magazine issue as the article was given in this one.
 23 August 2012 10:40 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



StewartTaylor

Posts: 99
Joined: 18 January 2003

Seems to me the editors of E&T are unwilling or unable to critically review the technical content of articles. Maybe a review panel for those articles that purport to have a serious technical content would help

-------------------------
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
 23 August 2012 11:49 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: mbm
The problem with submitting this sort of article to an engineering magazine is that the vast majority of engineers are aware of the analytical process known as "The Scientific Method".

Strange that the IET is not aware of that method!
Regards.
 24 August 2012 10:30 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



thorleygd

Posts: 1
Joined: 25 July 2008

Yes, climate change has always been with us, but never at the rate it's now occurring, if the evidence is to be believed. The real issue is that, even if the probablility that our activities are the cause of global warming is tiny, should we be taking the risk? I think our kids would say no. We can, however, rest assured that politicians have no interest in long term (< about 5 years) problems like this, so nothing of substance will happen, but the subject will be bent in all directions for short term political gain.
 25 August 2012 11:02 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: thorleygd
Yes, climate change has always been with us, but never at the rate it's now occurring, if the evidence is to be believed.

When we say never, do we have evidence from say 1 billion years ago?
The real issue is that, even if the probablility that our activities are the cause of global warming is tiny, should we be taking the risk? I think our kids would say no.

Maybe if we are so concerned then we should stop having the kids who simply add more CO2?
We can, however, rest assured that politicians have no interest in long term (< about 5 years) problems like this, so nothing of substance will happen, but the subject will be bent in all directions for short term political gain.

If we are so concerned about our politicians and think they are not up to the job then why do we not ourselves run for office instead of just complaining about everyone else?

Regards.
 25 August 2012 02:31 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbm

Posts: 3
Joined: 18 January 2003

Originally posted by: thorleygd

Yes, climate change has always been with us, but never at the rate it's now occurring, if the evidence is to be believed.


1) Never ?!? Please can you link to the dataset(s) supporting the use of this word ?

2) Evidence is not to be "believed", it is to be verified.

NB : In science, the output of (computer) models form part of the HYPOTHESIS, not part of the DATA.

The complete list of elements of the (C)AGW hypothesis that have been confirmed by the empirical evidence is :
1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2) There is no number two ...


The real issue is that, even if the probablility that our activities are the cause of global warming is tiny, should we be taking the risk? I think our kids would say no.


One of the "real issues" is that an independent cost/benefit analysis has not been performed comparing "mitigation" and "adaptation" strategies.
Note that the issue of "global warming / climate change" is now so politicised that a genuinely "independent" analysis is probably no longer possible (if it ever was).

Insuring a house that costs 100,000 pounds sterling (100K) for 10K per year is much more costly than putting 10K per year into a trust fund for your kids to build a new house when it burns down (once every 1000 years, on average ...).
 29 August 2012 09:17 AM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message



rogerbryant

Posts: 864
Joined: 19 July 2002

I was also interested to read 'The Eccentric Engineer' in the same issue.

This relates to number of US military aircraft that had to make an emergency landing in Greenland during WW2. The crews were rescued but the planes were left on a glacier where they landed. 70 years later they were found buried under 80m of ice.

According the the 'sensations' in the press, for example:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19393075

Greenlands ice is disapearing. Something here does not quite add up in my view. Any glaciologists out there?

Best regards

Roger
 27 September 2012 01:24 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

Wow! Three new CAGW sceptic posters. Thought I was the only (ex) IET member objecting to E&T's continuous promotion of extremist enviro-nonsense and green subsidy farming. And I see Rodgoslin even managed to prompt the IET censor into action with his very first post. Congratulations. In the words of Bruce Willis "Welcome to the party pal".

Edited: 27 September 2012 at 03:36 PM by Ipayyoursalary
 28 September 2012 06:37 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for rossall.
rossall

Posts: 1048
Joined: 06 August 2001

The moderators intervened only to append a descriptive topic summary (Climate change: transformation technologies), in order that forum users scanning the thread titles could see easily what particular poppycock was being alleged in this one

Under the design of this discussion system, that requires an edit of the message, which the system then reports as you have seen.

Regards

-------------------------
David Rossall
The Institution of Engineering and Technology
 30 September 2012 11:43 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Or is that just what you want us to think? And why does the IET refuse to publish a denial that the redesign of Savoy Place is only to build the secret offices for our Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth masters in the basement? And is it true that the Stevenage office is being relocated to Area 51? I think we should be told!

P.S. Nice article from Scientific American about conspiracy theories and how to spot them http://www.michaelshermer.com/...iracy-theory-detector/

P.P.S. Just in case anyone here struggles with the concept of irony (heaven forbid ) I think a quick review of these forums shows that the IET has no problem with anyone presenting the most bonkers and anti-IET views. Congrats to David and his team for massive self-control Must get some myself...

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET CMgr MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress." Joseph Joubert
 30 September 2012 02:17 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

And congrats to those who give their questions, views and opinions etc., for they are the ones who keep the forums alive for David's team to moderate.

Regards.
 16 October 2012 10:19 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for raymondfcragg.
raymondfcragg

Posts: 22
Joined: 18 January 2003

I totally agree with you. What should be stated is the additional affect the human population is have on the climate.
The general argument put forward implies that Climate Change has never been around before and that it is 100% the peoples fault.
It is good to hear someone with reasoning commenting on this subject
 17 October 2012 08:09 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



cookers

Posts: 203
Joined: 10 February 2012

I read this article in August, but the UK weather was so "disappointing" at the time that my fingers were too cold to press the keys, and anyway its is well established that people, organisations, governments believe such disaster scenarios, so what's the pint of debate.

I was looking forward to the prediction made by the UK Met Office in 2007 that in the near future UK would have "a climate similar to the South of France".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...te-global-warning.html

However the latest scientific predictions in 2012 are that the UK climate will get more like the North of Scotland.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...arming-washout-summer

Both these predictions are made by experts so they must be right!

My climate change "off the wall" hypothesis (or utter poppycock) is that latitude, geography, and the North Atlantic Jet Stream will continue to intervene and the UK weather will remain as it always has been, "disappointing", so I am glad I didn't order the sun awnings.
 22 November 2012 12:07 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



HazelGroveWolf

Posts: 93
Joined: 25 July 2008

Wait until you read the rubbish that is written in the ever 'greening' Engineering & Technology 11th December 2012. Serial editor Dickon Ross thinks he knows better than an engineer or a half decent physicist. So far as I can tell he is in no position to comment.
No institution links individual weather events with climate change unless it is politically motivated (Al Gore etc). Even the IPCC agrees.
Dickon Ross and his cohorts need to be extracted from this Institution. It is after all for engineers who mostly will have worked their rocks off trying to find real solutions to real world problems based on maths and physics.

Regards

Dave Nunn MIET
 18 February 2013 06:31 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

Originally posted by: HazelGroveWolf
Wait until you read the rubbish that is written in the ever 'greening' Engineering & Technology 11th December 2012. Serial editor Dickon Ross thinks he knows better than an engineer or a half decent physicist. So far as I can tell he is in no position to comment....
Dickon Ross and his cohorts need to be extracted from this Institution. It is after all for engineers who mostly will have worked their rocks off trying to find real solutions to real world problems based on maths and physics.

Just wanted to give you an "amen brother" for that post Dave. I was an IEE/IET member for 18 years before I decided I was no longer prepared to support an organisation employing the likes of Dickon Ross to publish a never ending stream of alarmist nonsense and cheerleading articles for the parasitic subsidy-farming industries who are currently bleeding UK taxpayers dry.
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.