An engineer's critique of global warming "Science"

Here's Burt Rutan questioning catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. A very interesting study/presentation that puts an end to my doubt about whether we are responsible for global warming and whether anthropogenic CO2 is the main cause of it.

Really Disinformation's Deconstruction at it's finest. A must read for everyone that have doubts about that Climate Change BS is really something more than a way to get more money. And a weapon against African and South American countries to not allow them develop by means of their fossil resources - coal and oil.

Please read the whole presentation/article and I will be waiting to exchange opinions with you.
^__^

Awesome, bloody brilliant thred.
S+F
Made for some great reading. Will bookmark this for future arguments.

Thank you.

reply to post by archasama


This was pretty good. Rutan is obviously a sharp guy and most engineers I know have serious misgivings about AGW.

The governments are surely using climate change for exploitation. That does in no way way mean it doesn't exsist. It's not just green house gasses. It's deforestation, pollution of water, the dying off of species, the rapid introduction of foreign species to new environments, weather manipulation, mining, drilling oil rapidly everywhere, heavy metals from industry, etc. You have to be brain dead to not acknowledge the current human population is impacting the earth and climate. The real issue is the suppression of actual real renewable and zero point energy technology. We don't want the developing world to have cleaner energy than us. The manipulation of third world growth has been going on since the industrial revolution. Ever modern and nearly all historical wars are over recourses and the stifling of enemy growth.

There are a tremendous amount of flaws in the logic thinking when there is no consequence for actions. If you kill off bugs, birds die, polination ceases, bird extinction causes lack of forest diversity, no forest cause species to go extinct, it continues through the chain. Modern systems theory is a far better template the
Engineering, for enviormental observation.

Just because it's the new scare tactic doesn't mean
It doesn't exsist in fact it can be more effective the opposite.

reply to post by Movescamp

The governments are surely using climate change for exploitation. That does in no way way mean it doesn't exsist. It's not just green house gasses. It's deforestation, pollution of water, the dying off of species, the rapid introduction of foreign species to new environments, weather manipulation, mining, drilling oil rapidly everywhere, heavy metals from industry, etc. You have to be brain dead to not acknowledge the current human population is impacting the earth and climate.

Erm, No......... The charge specifically is Global warming caused by man-made CO2 !!!

reply to post by ken10


But that's stupid. How do you mine or extract fossil fuels without environmental impact? It's a short sighted argument. You have to build roads, bring in equipment, use chemicals, house workers, in the third world there is little regulation, you can cut open parts of the amazon river bank and get oil. The fossil fuels have to come from somewhere right?

reply to post by Movescamp


But we could use Bio-fuels, which although could cut out the impact on the environment that you mention (And if you started a thread on it i would star and flag you, because that is the real problem) But even Bio-fuels would still be burnt, putting the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere regardless.

Originally posted by ken10
reply to post by Movescamp

 

But we could use Bio-fuels, which although could cut out the impact on the environment that you mention (And if you started a thread on it i would star and flag you, because that is the real problem) But even Bio-fuels would still be burnt, putting the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere regardless.

I disagree I believe here with those who say that CO2 does not cause climate change.

The main problem for environment is fossil fuel extraction and refining impact on environment.
Just watched GasLand and there's loads of examples throughout the world for it's negative impact.

I would never trade my drinking water for fossil fuel.

reply to post by archasama

I disagree I believe here with those who say that CO2 does not cause climate change.

If you had read my post before the one you quoted, you will see i have the same view as you.

reply to post by ken10


This is true. But as you said it's not a co2 issue. First off the magnetosphere is fading. It most likely has nothing to do with humans but does impact ozone. The kicker is we has no how to get away from burning anything. Although there are obvious transition steps that need to be done. In terms of our understanding of physics it is ubsurd we are using combustion and bearings. At the vey least magnetic fields should be used in place of bearings. Then there is them solid state "tuners" tesla made to gather energy. It makes perfect sense. The ionosphere has hundreds of thousands of volts in it. It just a question of mans greed. We could all be living at a higher standard of living than anyone knows today if not for greed. Look at what buckminster fuller, tesla, Townsend brown, and many other single individuals could do. Imagine if they had research labs and staff. It's a shame really. We are living like cave men in comparison to our knowledge of physics and engineering. The missing link is efficient electricity. It's already here just burried by the kings of industry. Hell I remember learning about sterling engines in my engineering class. Then never again.

Star and flag. wonderful presentation you found. I plan to share it with a few people I have been having this exact debate over. A great way to summarize a lot of the problems with the media's presentation of data.

reply to post by TLomon


Spread the word and Combat Ignorance!

This information is to be spread and shared with as many people as possible.
^__^

Facts won't make the slightest difference - they have allready put together a coalition of inluential parties whose percieved interests are served more by the proposed solutions, than are concerned about the truth.

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


Just read the whole presentation.

Very good read. I'm making my brother read it right now, maybe it'll raise some doubts for him.

reply to post by Movescamp


World runs on money - who owns the the money - runs the world.
Sad but true.

Oil barons does not want alternative energy because it would destroy their business.
World runs on money, world runs on oil, coal, gas. They own it - prices are growing - they profit.
Why get off such a good business.

Speaking about Tesla - free energy for all?
There's no money to be made there.

Simple and plain - if you are not a billionaire no one gives a damn about what you want and how you feel.
Cruel world.

reply to post by archasama

Please read the whole presentation/article and I will be waiting to exchange opinions with you.

I have no interest in reading an engineer's take on Global Warming anymore than I want to hear botanists talk about the reproductive habits of penguins or a quantum physicist weigh in on paleontology. An engineer is way outside his realm of expertise talking about Global Warming and so it might as well be Joe the Plumber.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Oh thy holly ignorance. Just because you see a word engineer you won't read it?
He is just looking at facts - at data diagrams and analyzing them.

Would you read an article by sellout scientist just because he is a scientist?

Burt Rutan is a wise man.

Don't judge an article by it's title.

reply to post by archasama


This guy is exploiting his own role as an applied scientist to bash climatologists. I don't think it is a credible argument for an Engineer to make in an area that is way outside of his sphere of expertise. Citing other doomsday hypothesis is also unneccesary.



There are climatologists that do not agree withman-made global warming as a hypothesis. Mentioning them in an OP is a more credible approach IMHO.

Sorry to disagree.

I can guarantee you that most people that call themselves 'climate scientists' are themsleves way out of thier depth when it comes to being able to back up the alleged theory of GW.

They are not Physicists - and have no idea of wether the basic theory of radiative CO2 forcing is correct ot not.

Neither are they Mathematicians or statasticians - they have no idea if the models they are using are valid or applicable.


Climatology is one of these bull# professions - just like geology, paleontology or archeology - they dont have a solid bedrock of fundamentals to rely on - hence they can drift off into complete fantasy land and no-one can persuade them any differently.

reply to post by archasama


That's pretty obvious. It's why all this bull carbon tax crap. Of course the big guys can afford to pollute. The solutions are artifact based. The effects of carbon based fuels are devastating. The focus is on co2 which is a diversion for the real problem. Which I already stated. For all of the people who think humans are not effecting climate I feel sorry for you. It's an excuse to not change. Take a look at deforestation maps or species impact. You can't take away even the most basic form of life without impact. You wouldn't dump chemicals in your back yard and expect your children or pets to live. The impact on basic aquatic and land species is all the proof you need. But yeah the carbon tax crap is scam to not solve real issues and keep the rich rich while addressing the bizare weather changes.