IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Discontent with E&T content
Topic Summary:
Created On: 08 August 2010 09:48 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
1 2 Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 08 August 2010 09:48 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



moregan

Posts: 8
Joined: 25 July 2008

I am baffled by the article 'View from Stockholm' in the August E&T, which is cleverly worded, and makes several questionable claims,not least of which is that a British submarine on an exercise in Swedish waters had it's crew's lives put at risk.
It claims it was damaged by a live munition because certain elements of their navy weren't informed of her presence - no wonder their retired Admirals vehemently deny these claims. It is blatant left wing election time propaganda aimed at the Swedish public - it has no Engineering or Technical content whatsoever - what is it doing in our magazine ?
M J O'Regan CEng MIET
 13 August 2010 04:50 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

Yes - it was a very strange article indeed - no engineering relevance atall. But that's nothing new for the IET - just look at all the nonsense articles about global warming. Zero engineering content. Last month we had 4 pages about an expedition to the North Pole on-foot. And what did they discover? It was bloody freezing up there.
 13 August 2010 09:40 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for roddalitz.
roddalitz

Posts: 125
Joined: 19 April 2002

The North Pole has always been cold, but it is hugely warmer than it was. Polar ice is melting, big-time, and the Inuit and polar bears are under threat. There is a real possibility of opening the North-West Passage as a result, and Russia and North America are eying the natural resources which are becoming accessible. All this is public domain and accessible to anyone who is interested.

Although the average climate of the earth is warming (about which there is no reasonable doubt) the important aspect is "Climate Change" with greater local variability, and more extreme weather. Few would doubt that more records are being broken, and more El Nino occurrrences.

This discussion has become trivial and insults the intelligence of IET members.

-------------------------
regards, Rod Dalitz (CEng MIEE FInstP)
rod.dalitz@blueyonder.co.uk
 13 August 2010 11:10 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



moregan

Posts: 8
Joined: 25 July 2008

On the topic of Global warming, surely the ground [ice] temperature is as cold as it ever was at the North Pole, it's around the edges of the surrounding ice cap that the ocean temperature is causing some melting . The real argument is surely whether we are significantly responsible, and perhaps more importantly, whether we should take immediate action to prepare for the predicted results, or try and halt / reverse them.
M J O'Regan C.Eng MIET
 14 August 2010 11:06 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for roddalitz.
roddalitz

Posts: 125
Joined: 19 April 2002

Ice temperature qt the north pole is variable, only always below freezing (obviously). Winter temperatures can be from -43C to -26C, summer temperature around 0C. Why should you say ice temperature is a cold as ever? Many observers agree that the winter ice is breaking up much earlier and over a wider area, so although I do not have figures the clear implication is that the ice is much warmer. Just like the ice at Concordia in the Alps, and the glaciers in New Zealand, where I have seen markers showing just how dramatically the ice has receded.

-------------------------
regards, Rod Dalitz (CEng MIEE FInstP)
rod.dalitz@blueyonder.co.uk
 16 August 2010 12:44 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

The North Pole..is hugely warmer than it was.

It's been the coldest summer on record north of 80N, and temperatures have dropped below freezing ahead of the average date.

Polar ice is melting, big-time,

The South Pole will likely set a record for most sea ice on record this season. Total polar ice remains practically constant.

Polar bears are under threat.

Their numbers have increased from about 5000 in the 1950's to over 25,000 today. Furthermore the bears survived an ice-free Arctic in the past. Their main threat remains hunting by man. Not CO2.

There's a real possibility of opening the North-West Passage...

"The morning of Aug. 9 brings heavy ice, and the Amundsen slows down to two knots. As the ship approaches a ridge, the bow hits the ice, rises up and then falls back. It takes three tries to cross the ridge before it cracks into huge chunks. Many more ridges lie ahead... "A ship with a reinforced hull could possibly make it intact through the passage. But if it got stuck, it would cost thousands of dollars for an icebreaker like the Amundsen to come to the rescue."

Greater local variability, and more extreme weather. Few would doubt that more records are being broken,

The latest paper from the WMO finds no increase in hurricane activity. Furthermore 2009 hurricanes were at a record low, and 2010 is following a similar path. The same's true of floods, droughts and other extremes. Contrary to what rent-seeking alarmists would have you believe - there's been no significant change in any of the records.

I have seen glacier markers showing just how dramatically the ice has receded.

It's what glaciers do between ice-ages. What makes you think they should always stay the same? Yosemite valley was carved by a glacier. Where is it now?

Edited: 16 August 2010 at 03:33 PM by Ipayyoursalary
 17 August 2010 12:53 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mike.mcclory

Posts: 30
Joined: 26 April 2006

Originally posted by: Ipayyoursalary

The North Pole..is hugely warmer than it was.


It's been the coldest summer on record north of 80N, and temperatures have dropped below freezing ahead of the average date.



Polar ice is melting, big-time,


The South Pole will likely set a record for most sea ice on record this season. Total polar ice remains practically constant.



Polar bears are under threat.


Their numbers have increased from about 5000 in the 1950's to over 25,000 today. Furthermore the bears survived an ice-free Arctic in the past. Their main threat remains hunting by man. Not CO2.



There's a real possibility of opening the North-West Passage...


"The morning of Aug. 9 brings heavy ice, and the Amundsen slows down to two knots. As the ship approaches a ridge, the bow hits the ice, rises up and then falls back. It takes three tries to cross the ridge before it cracks into huge chunks. Many more ridges lie ahead... "A ship with a reinforced hull could possibly make it intact through the passage. But if it got stuck, it would cost thousands of dollars for an icebreaker like the Amundsen to come to the rescue."



Greater local variability, and more extreme weather. Few would doubt that more records are being broken,


The latest paper from the WMO finds no increase in hurricane activity. Furthermore 2009 hurricanes were at a record low, and 2010 is following a similar path. The same's true of floods, droughts and other extremes. Contrary to what rent-seeking alarmists would have you believe - there's been no significant change in any of the records.



I have seen glacier markers showing just how dramatically the ice has receded.


It's what glaciers do between ice-ages. What makes you think they should always stay the same? Yosemite valley was carved by a glacier. Where is it now?
You seriously quote WUWT on this site and expect to be taken seriously. He's a propangandist (if not outright fraudulant - though I reserve that for Viscount Monckton!). His postings are constantly ripped to pieces by bloggers such as Eli Rabbet, Tamino, Zeke Hausfather and Lucia (and she's a sceptic!). Even then you misquote him, Watts said it was the coldest in 6 years (an absurd time frame in climatology), not 'on record'.

As pointed out already surface temperatures in the arctic regions are pretty meaningless because sea temperatures are the over-riding factors. Both sea-ice extent and volume are dropping precipitously, pearticularly for multi-year ice. If you're going to post up links at least use reputeable sites:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Even Judith Curry has come up with a plauisble mechanism for Antarctic ice and again it has nothing to do with surface temperatures:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...0/08/100816154958.htm

Re: Polar Bears:

Experts in polar bear science believe they are. They predict that as the Arctic continues to warm due to climate change, two-thirds of the world's polar bears could disappear by 2030.

Rapid loss of sea ice is their major threat. Others include pollution, poaching, and industrial impact. Hunting will become a threat if not well regulated.

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bears/faq (my bold)
 18 August 2010 01:59 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

Anthony Watt's blog 'What's Up With That' was voted the No.1 science blog in 2008 and receives more traffic than any other climate blog. It's because his articles are well written and informative and he presents views from all sides of the climate debate while retaining a healthy scepticism. You will often find a vigourous debate between opposing opinions in the comments section - which is frequented by many scientists and engineers working in a wide range of fields. Disenting opinions are welcomed and comments are uncensored (apart from removal of personal insults). Discussions have often lead to public corrections, replies and follow-up articles. This contrasts markedly with the condescending, authoritarian tone and Stalinesque censorship you will find on many other climate blogs - where no dissenting opinions are allowed unless they are to be ridiculed. (For example - Tamino's posts at RealClimate.)

Regarding NSDIC. They have consistently presented a biased, alarmist view of the natural variation in Arctic sea ice. One only needs to look at their sea ice page to see there's no mention of the record high Antarctic sea ice. Why not? Surely measurements from both poles should be presented. The reason is clear: The Antarctic is not 'on message'. Their aim is to alarm visitors with a 'one-sided' presentation. In 2008 the NSDIC director Mark Sereze famously predicted an ice-free Arctic saying sea ice was entering a 'death spiral'. Since then it's grown every year and he now admits the 2007 minimum was principally caused by unusual wind patterns compressing the ice. Oh, and the graphs I linked to were from Cryosphere Today - a reputable site which just presents the data without the rent-seeking political spin.

Re Judith Curry's paper: Yet another paper speculating on future disaster based on nothing more than failed climate models which can't predict the weather next week - never mind in 50 years time. Anyway - if you read between the alarmist spin, the paper actually acknowledges the negative feedbacks generated by increased clouds and precipitation. The exact same negative feedbacks which are always ignored by the climate doom brigade. I should also mention that last year, alarmists claimed the Antarctic ice growth was due to the ozone hole. This year it's increased precipitation. How about the honest answer: They don't fully understand the complex chaotic climate system - and they don't know why it's increasing?

Re the Polar Bears International self-interest group. A visit to their website shows multiple 'Donate' and 'adopt a polar bear' icons. Naturally it would be bad for business if they stated that polar bear numbers had actually increased 5 fold over the last 50 years. Furthermore, their statement that sea-ice loss is a threat to bears has no scientific basis. Polar bears are nomadic and highly mobile and have survived ice-free arctic summers in the past.

Edited: 18 August 2010 at 02:44 AM by Ipayyoursalary
 18 August 2010 06:37 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for rossall.
rossall

Posts: 1048
Joined: 06 August 2001

The article that gave rise to this thread can be viewed on the KN site (right-hand column).

Regards

-------------------------
David Rossall
The Institution of Engineering and Technology
 18 August 2010 09:38 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

Hi David,

Just wondering, will you be censoring Mr McClory's post above, in which he libels Lord Monckton by calling him 'outright fraudulent'?

You can read Lord Monkton's detailed rebuttal of the smear tactics used by environmental self-interest groups to discredit him. Smear tactics they use on anyone who dares to speak out against their agenda.

Edited: 19 August 2010 at 08:21 AM by Ipayyoursalary
 24 August 2010 05:34 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mike.mcclory

Posts: 30
Joined: 26 April 2006

Originally posted by: Ipayyoursalary

Hi David,



Just wondering, will you be censoring Mr McClory's post above, in which he libels Lord Monckton by calling him 'outright fraudulent'?



You can read Lord Monkton's detailed rebuttal of the smear tactics used by environmental self-interest groups to discredit him. Smear tactics they use on anyone who dares to speak out against their agenda.
Hardly libelous. Moncktons claims have been ripped to pieces by Professor John Abraham and others. He's been repeated shown to have mis-represented information from scientific papers. He continues to repeat the mis-representation. That leaves two possible alternatives. That he is inept, which I don't believe, he's actually a rather skilled presenter, or that he is willfully distorting the work of scientists in this field. Something that he recompensed for via the SPPI. All of this is a matter of record.
 24 August 2010 09:32 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Maybe the Lord took lessons from Tony Blair....I think standards have dropped all round.

Regards.
 25 August 2010 02:10 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

westonpa - if you take the time to read a few pages of Lord Monckton's rebuttal here I think you'll find the highest standards of honesty and truth.

Perhaps McClory would like to point out one of Monckton's alleged mis-representations? Maybe we could check it against what Monckton actually said? I doubt he will though. The tactic is always the same: Smear then move on - never debate the issues.

Lord Monckton is a very knowledgeble and convincing speaker. Therefore, make no mistake, the green-lobby will continue attempting to discredit him by any means necessary. However - the fact they're now resorting to smears & ad hominem attacks instead of debating the scientific issues - shows just how desperate they are. The public are wising up to those charaltans who seek to gain power and money by scare mongering about natural climate variations.

Edited: 25 August 2010 at 02:25 PM by Ipayyoursalary
 25 August 2010 04:47 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mike.mcclory

Posts: 30
Joined: 26 April 2006

Originally posted by: Ipayyoursalary

westonpa - if you take the time to read a few pages of Lord Monckton's rebuttal here I think you'll find the highest standards of honesty and truth.



Perhaps McClory would like to point out one of Monckton's alleged mis-representations? Maybe we could check it against what Monckton actually said? I doubt he will though. The tactic is always the same: Smear then move on - never debate the issues.



Lord Monckton is a very knowledgeble and convincing speaker. Therefore, make no mistake, the green-lobby will continue attempting to discredit him by any means necessary. However - the fact they're now resorting to smears & ad hominem attacks instead of debating the scientific issues - shows just how desperate they are. The public are wising up to those charaltans who seek to gain power and money by scare mongering about natural climate variations.
Rather than repeat all the work, here's a link to Prof. Abraham's critique of just one of Viscount Monckton's talks. He managed to find flaws all of the arguements used by Monckton.

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

it is rather long, but he found systematic mis-representation of data from scientific studies.

Then there's Prof. Barry Bickmore:

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com...iles-solar-variation/

And Prof. Scott Mandia:

http://profmandia.wordpress.co...-christopher-monckton/
 26 August 2010 08:32 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rogerbryant

Posts: 854
Joined: 19 July 2002

The man made climate change debate, like the hazards of low level radiation debate tends to contain a lot of people quoting second or third hand information from politically or ideologically biased speakers.

It is quite easy to gain an idea of the level of bias by tracing some of the quotes back to their source to see if they are quoted out of context, miss quoted or simply don't exist. If someone is publishing a document claiming 'scientific' status the references should be in a standard form and easy to trace. If there are no references or they are too vague to follow the quotes may well have been made up. Searching the authors name on the internet also gives a good idea of their affiliations and also if they are what they say they are. Someone may well be a Doctor or Professor, but not in the field in which they are claiming to be an expert.

With the resources available on the internet it is also quite possible to do some simple research yourself to confirm or deny some of the claims. You may find old maps showing the positions of coastlines and the ends of glaciers so you can see how they recede or not over time and by how much. Temperatures may be found on some meteorological websites. Other records are out there for you to see. The Morterasch glacier in Switzerland has markers showing the end of the glacier every 10 years for more than a century. There are paintings of people skating on the Thames. Old cities often have markers showing the height of various floods going back many centuries see you can consider if the weather is more extreme now than in the past.

Don't just follow the herd, look at some of the source material, look at some of the discrepancies noted by both sides and make your own mind up.

Best regards

Roger
 26 August 2010 12:08 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for roddalitz.
roddalitz

Posts: 125
Joined: 19 April 2002

"Never argue with an idiot, they will just drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience."

-------------------------
regards, Rod Dalitz (CEng MIEE FInstP)
rod.dalitz@blueyonder.co.uk
 26 August 2010 01:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ectophile

Posts: 526
Joined: 17 September 2001

Originally posted by: roddalitz

"Never argue with an idiot, they will just drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience."


There's another version of that: "Never argue with an idiot, because you will just end up with two idiots".

-------------------------
S P Barker BSc PhD MIET
 27 August 2010 02:06 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

McClory - you'll find every one of Abraham's points rebutted in the Monckton doc I linked to above. Although I'd like to draw reader's attention to the pages of Abraham's talk entitled 'Who is Willie Soon?' - in which Abrahams mounts an extended smear attack based on Soon's research support by Mobil Oil.

It could equally be said that 95% of climate research is funded by governments who would very much like an excuse to implement a "tax on everything" based on CO2. Therefore should all that government funded research be dismissed? Of course not. What a ridiculous argument.

Equally, Soon's research funding has absolutely no bearing on whether his findings are valid or not. They should be judged on their merits alone: whether they can be replicated and whether they have predictive ability. The fact that Abrahams relies so heavily on smear tactics shows he's a political hack - not a scientist. Ad hominem smears have no place in scientific debate.

------------------------

Good points Roger - with such an important issue everyone needs to study the evidence (or lack of it) for themselves. Something which professional engineers are well qualified to do.

------------------------

So Rod - with all those letters after your name, the best you can do is call me an idiot? After I politely answered every one of the points you raised in your list of concerns? Nice.

Edited: 27 August 2010 at 02:19 PM by Ipayyoursalary
 28 August 2010 10:01 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mike.mcclory

Posts: 30
Joined: 26 April 2006

Originally posted by: Ipayyoursalary

McClory - you'll find every one of Abraham's points rebutted in the Monckton doc I linked to above. Although I'd like to draw reader's attention to the pages of Abraham's talk entitled 'Who is Willie Soon?' - in which Abrahams mounts an extended smear attack based on Soon's research support by Mobil Oil.



It could equally be said that 95% of climate research is funded by governments who would very much like an excuse to implement a "tax on everything" based on CO2. Therefore should all that government funded research be dismissed? Of course not. What a ridiculous argument.



Equally, Soon's research funding has absolutely no bearing on whether his findings are valid or not. They should be judged on their merits alone: whether they can be replicated and whether they have predictive ability. The fact that Abrahams relies so heavily on smear tactics shows he's a political hack - not a scientist. Ad hominem smears have no place in scientific debate.



------------------------



Good points Roger - with such an important issue everyone needs to study the evidence (or lack of it) for themselves. Something which professional engineers are well qualified to do.



------------------------



So Rod - with all those letters after your name, the best you can do is call me an idiot? After I politely answered every one of the points you raised in your list of concerns? Nice.
I think you will find it more polite not to simply use a persons surname in the way that you have.

All I find in Viscount Monckton's reply is a rehashing of the same lies and mis-representation of the scientific studies, not a rebuttal. Nor is Abraham using smear tactics. Whereas Monckton has referred to Abraham as an 'overcooked prawn' and St Thomas' as a 'bible college'. It seems the good Viscount screams about ad-hominem attacks when directed at him, even when they aren't, yet is quite happy to launch them himself.

I fail to see your point about government funding. Whether the governments are looking at CO2 taxation is a political matter, not a scientific one. It will be coming though whether it is due to global warming mitigation or because of the 'Peak Oil' problem.
 28 August 2010 04:58 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mike.mcclory

Posts: 30
Joined: 26 April 2006

Perhaps Goddard is also seemingly talking out of his backside:

http://www.nature.com/nature/j.../full/nature09051.html
IET » Feedback and questions » Discontent with E&T content

1 2 Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



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