I nearly thought about posting on this, where the Toad (aka Connolley) has finally decided that 8minutes of watching him rowing is more important than anything else.
However, then I noticed people were commenting and I couldn’t help wondering what the eco-fascist line was on rowing. Then I spotted this gem from the EndOfPhysics:
Apart from the “can can’t” this is something I seem to be encountering more and more. People who are insisting on validation of models, or precise confirmation of certain quantities (like the ECS for example). It’s as if they think science should be more like engineering and don’t realise that science is about trying to understand the world around us, not control or use it. You can’t just deliver a scientific result on demand, you can only do as well as is possible given the tools/knowledge available at that time.
Yet another classic example of the ivory tower mentality: “You can’t just deliver a scientific result on demand“. And yes, because engineers deal with this type of problem day in day out where “You can’t just deliver a scientific result on demand“, engineers are the professionals in judging a situation where “You can’t just deliver a scientific result on demand“, and this is why engineers work on these kinds of issues where we do need to make decisions where “You can’t just deliver a scientific result on demand” and this is why we don’t allow academics in their ivory towers to go anywhere near problems where you do want “scientific results on demand“.
This is the delusion of academia. They sit in their ivory towers thinking they are better than engineers, telling us they are “95% confident” and that there is “97% consensus”. But when anyone asks them to justify their claims that any engineer can see are fraudulent they say: “You can’t just deliver a scientific result on demand“.
The difference between science and engineering.
An engineer is a scientist. The difference is that engineers have ADDITIONAL TRAINING, SKILLS & TECHNIQUES which allow them to make the best possible decisions when “You can’t just deliver a scientific result on demand“. So engineers are scientists who are also trained to deal with situations with limited information, with unclear results, with the human factors and with life and death decisions – and make the best decision.
In contrast academics don’t make any decision. They understand how to deal with less-that-perfect real world situation. The reality is that they only work in areas where “You CAN deliver a scientific result on demand“, and look down at the far higher training, skills & techniques of engineers having to make time-critical, life-critical decisions in the real world outside their ivory towers.
And it is this arrogant stupidity of academics, who clearly do not have any legitimacy as any kind of expert in situations like the climate where “You can’t just deliver a scientific result on demand“. It’s this arrogance they have any expertise, which has led them into the non-science of pretending to be experts in an area where they have no competence:Climate Engineering
Definition: Climate engineering is the scientific & engineering skills, techniques & training to make the best scientific, engineering, economic & policy decisions on climate in a situation where “You can’t just deliver a scientific result on demand“.
Agreed. Certainly if you can’t validate the models, you definitely can’t use them for aiding policy or decision making.
That would be stupid.
Pingback: Why climate engineers beat the climate academics | ScottishSceptic
I think it’s more subtle. A human engineer (aka doctor) has a patient with a headache. The patient is concerned about a tumour, the doctor diagnoses “nothing serious” – but clearly they cannot “validate that model” except via surgery – instead they are using their judgement.
But it’s not that simple. The doctor has to be aware that they may well be wrong (unlike climate academics), So this is only a provisional diagnosis.
Surgery is clearly harmful, but if symptoms persist or get worse, then it will be necessary to investigate further, so what the doctor would then do, is to work out a series of actions and decisions based on medical science, the individual case and their own judgement to work out when and how to proceed.
This is how real life works (outside the ivory towers). Engineers work out ways to deal with situations where models cannot be validated in full.
In contrast, academics only think of “understanding” the condition – they simply are not trained to “manage” an issue like climate or come to a decision about what to do.
Few people would expect an electrician or a sailor to have more responsibility than a climate scientist but if a signal box was incorrectly wired or a ship sailed with its bow doors open, you’d not accept ‘I was doing my best’ as an excuse for failure. Why then do climate scientists feel justified in using it as an excuse? They use the banking fiasco as justification for their casual attitude because bankers are paid more. So because there are well paid, underserving failures out there, we should accept a few more? It almost seems like the less you are paid the less responsibility you should shoulder.
But the opposite happens in practice.
Are you a climate engineer? You seem to know a lot about science and engineering.