Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. blog comments powered by Disqus

Petro Engineers in Climatology Pt. 1

ATMOSPHERIC BIASES - From the Peg, April 2010

The climate is ever-changing — always has been, always will be (1). Everyone has a bias (2), which is simply human nature. This is exactly why we postulate hypothesises (3) to test our thoughts.

Such testing should be performed without emotions (4) . Some choose to believe (5) man is to blame for many of Earth's natural changes and attritions. Because they lack proof of their hypothesis (6), they resort to political pressure and name calling (deniers, Flat Earthers, etc.). They play to human emotions (guilt, pity, scare tactics). All of this is intended to persuade others to acquiesce and accept their unproven, ideologically prescribed remedies (7).

When I perform a technical bid evaluation for mechanical equipment at work, it is done without emotions or bias. If there is no firm and unequicocal data showing why the lowest priced, technically accepttable product should not be purchase, we almost always proceed in this direction.

Since we don't have unequivocal technical data and findings (8) supporting why we should reduce CO2 production, it makes the same rational, technical sense not to spend billions on carbon reductions and sequestering at this time. Let’s continue to review and scrutinize the data, methodology and assumptions in an atmosphere void of biases and emotions.

If this is done, the only probable outcome is that money should continue to be spent on further research and studies of this topic, with no immediate or premature funds being spent on what could prove to be unnecessary carbon capture, sequester- ing, and cap-and-trade schemes.

Let’s emphasize science and implement
only unemotional, rational thought (9). In a criminal case, we don’t prepare and ready the electric chair prior to the jury’s verdict (10). It is clear the jury is still out on the climate change topic. More than 850 subject- matter experts have personally signed petitions objecting to CO2 restrictions (11). Until this technical topic is mutually agreed upon by qualified subject-matter experts, actions and penalties certainly should not be imposed (directly or indirectly) on all of us.

Santa Clarita, Calif.

FoGT comments the individual points:

(1) Somebody should call NASA and tell them that - we could save millions of dollars in money wasted on so-called climate research. It is implied that, because climate has changed naturally in the past, it always does so. In other words, always the same processes are operating to the same extent. That's like saying: because bushfires have been started by the lightning in the past, arson can always be excluded today. The logic of frontier engineers!

(2) FoGT is not sure whether every researcher has a bias (= preconceived idea). We would rather argue the opposite.

(3) What is hypothesises (sic)? And why is a scientitic hypothesis based on a preconceived idea?

(4) We are not aware that NASA scientists are very emotional at their work.

(5) Because of the (faulty) logic in (1), all science proving anthropenic global warming (AGW) is wrong and thus AGW is based on pure, ideologically motivated belief.

(6) & (7) Because scientists cannot prove their faith-based theories, they call the rigorous amateur skeptic names.

(8) Because the scientists are wrong based on (1), there is no reason to take any action.

(9) Instead of relying on the emotional science of scientists, we should rely on the unemotional science of non-scientists.

(10) Electric chair analogy: while the danger has been removed by having the delinquent in captivity, this is not the case by ignoring CO2.

(11) Science by petition: 850 people who have
personally signed the petition can't be wrong. Which means that the 97% of actively publishing climatologists that argue otherwise must be very wrong as well as the national science academies of 32 countries and every major scientific society.

Summary: The writer closes his argument essentially with (1), which constitutes a
Converse Fallacy of Accident: argues from a special case to a general rule
  • Example Argument: Every swan I have seen is white, so it must be true that all swans are white. Problem: What one has seen is a subset of the entire set. One cannot have seen all swans.
  • Also called reverse accident, destroying the exception, a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter.
RRH adds: "He generally argues from a position of ignorance. His "there is no evidence" clearly shows that he has not read or is even aware of the thousands (yes, thousands) of peer-reviewed articles of scientic studies that are published every year showing that the earth is warming and that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are responsible."

Damnant quod non intellegunt!