Page 1 of 2
Entirely Peer Reviewed Reports
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 4:54 am
by MSimon
http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/30/epa- ... -comments/
Followers of the various IPCC gates will appreciate the following quotation from
Volume 11 of the Responses(pdf):
As IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri recently stated:
IPCC relies entirely on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment
Pachauri continued:
The entire report writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as governments. Consequently, there is at every stage full opportunity for experts in the field to draw attention to any piece of literature and its basic findings that would ensure inclusion of a wide range of views. There is, therefore, no possibility of exclusion of any contrarian views, if they have been published in established journals or other publications which are peer reviewed.
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 6:41 am
by Josh Cryer
Pachauri is an idiot. Like many engineers he is prone to stupid ass generalizations and absolutes.
He's not a scientist.
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:42 pm
by seedload
Josh Cryer wrote:Pachauri is an idiot. Like many engineers he is prone to stupid ass generalizations and absolutes.
He's not a scientist.
Curious. Are the attacks against engineers a form of sarcasm directed at MSimon or are they legit?
There are very good engineers. There are very good scientists. There are also bad versions of both. The market usually disperses these various incarnations of scientifically minded individuals into different callings. Treating them all equally probably isn't a great idea. That applies to engineers as well as scientists.
My own experience is that a good engineer is orders of magnitude more valuable than an average or bad one. Usually, the bad engineers end up in places where their hours can be billed despite their lack of productivity.
I would suspect the same to be true of scientists. There are scientists who are highly sought after because they do things like cure cancer and then there are scientists who count tree rings badly.
regards
Josh Cryer wrote:Like many engineers he is prone to stupid ass generalizations and absolutes.
BTW, that sentence was priceless. Thanks for it. The irony made me chuckle.
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 2:26 am
by Josh Cryer
seedload wrote:Curious. Are the attacks against engineers a form of sarcasm directed at MSimon or are they legit?
When I see engineers making statements about science (such as Pachauri) I feel free to criticize. Especially engineers with *no* significant scientific background (industrial engineering, seriously?).
There are very good engineers. There are very good scientists. There are also bad versions of both.
Yes, but there are few engineers who are good scientists and few scientists who are good engineers. I consider myself at least a competent observer of reality and capable of good engineering. My daily work places me closer to being an engineer, since it is construction and we have to make sure stuff doesn't collapse on soldiers and that planes can land without issue.
Treating them all equally probably isn't a great idea. That applies to engineers as well as scientists.
I didn't realize my statement precluded scientists from exhibiting stupidity.
I would suspect the same to be true of scientists. There are scientists who are highly sought after because they do things like cure cancer and then there are scientists who count tree rings badly.
Now you're generalizing.
BTW, that sentence was priceless. Thanks for it. The irony made me chuckle.
Had I said "all" engineers then it would have been more ironic.
BTW, I'm still responding to the "Climate Skeptic" it's just taking awhile (NewMars.com had a major database failure a day or so ago and I had to do some updates, plus we're panicing over the NASA budget, which really is screwing manned space flight).
I haven't forgotten!
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 2:31 am
by MSimon
Yes, but there are few engineers who are good scientists
Engineers spend more time with the scientific method in a year than most scientists do in a lifetime.
I can think of very few scientists who could withstand a full on engineering design review.
It is easier for scientists to fudge results than it is for engineers. Theories take a lot of time to resolve. Your airplane flies or it doesn't.
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 2:58 am
by Josh Cryer
MSimon wrote:Engineers spend more time with the scientific method in a year than most scientists do in a lifetime.
Not in my experience, they follow blueprints and take for granted the mathematics that structural engineers (architects) tested in their models. Engineers are all about the "how," scientists are all about the "what."
I can think of very few scientists who could withstand a full on engineering design review.
Both of them share disciplines.
But engineers, again, fall into a certain category:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_hypothesis
It is easier for scientists to fudge results than it is for engineers. Theories take a lot of time to resolve. Your airplane flies or it doesn't.
The peer review makes fudging results far more difficult. Engineers don't know if their results are adequate until it's too late.
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 3:01 am
by MSimon
When you get back to climate you might what to discuss why the field has been so corrupted.
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 3:03 am
by MSimon
Josh,
You point is exactly the one I'm making. Engineers tend to be more careful because errors can cause great economic losses. Or worse kill people.
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:50 am
by seedload
Josh Cryer wrote:BTW, I'm still responding to the "Climate Skeptic" it's just taking awhile (NewMars.com had a major database failure a day or so ago and I had to do some updates, plus we're panicing over the NASA budget, which really is screwing manned space flight).
You mean the Obama budget that cuts NASA and builds in stimulous in an effort to make it perminent? That one? Great ideas really. Cut NASA shedding jobs so that more money can go into more failed stimulous to weakly attempt to make other jobs at ridiculous costs. Nice.
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 8:10 am
by Skipjack
You mean the Obama budget that cuts NASA
Best thing that has happened in a long time, if you ask me. It was needed and it was done. I applaud Obama for that. Note, I am a space geek and I see only good to come from that. So do other people, Buzz Aldrin, e.g..
The PRIVATE space industry does so as well.
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 8:14 am
by Skipjack
Btw, "cuts NASA" is a gross missrepresentation of reality. Their budget increase was not as big as they wanted it to be. That is a long way from "cuts"!
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:04 am
by Betruger
I don't know the complete in-depth context, but this seems to be the best in-a-nutshell comment I've seen yet in any article, blog or forum. It's from C.Bergin @ NSF:
Yet with even an additional $3b a year per Augustine, they wouldn't be able to beat a five year gap....and forget about the ISS going to 2020 in that scenario - so 10 year gap, minimum.
When throwing funding at a problem fails to provide a solution to the key issue (the gap), or a program is so expensive the billions already spent resulted in an amount of progress that you need another $3b a year on top, the problem is bigger than funding.
However, now we'll soon have no shuttle, no CxP, and despite extra money for the Commercial launcher, the STS and CxP funds now "released"* this somehow equates to no direction and no heavy lifter** other than the promise of some wild and wacky R&D effort that no one seems to have a clue about right now.
*Oh yeah, NASA still has to pay off CxP contractors to the tune of 2.5 billion to do nothing other than pack up. And it's not cheap to lay off thousands of shuttle workers.
**The key! Get the direction/missions planned. Get the HLV prioritized and beat Ares V's original timeline. I reckon that's where the Congress fight will be.
Although I don't get why you would argue for NASA to insist on their own launcher (if that's what he's saying in **). Fuggetaboutit.. Let commercial compete for one.
All the wailing over this being the end of US space flight, of NASA HSF, over commercial groups being incapable of providing reliable launchers, of providing them as quick as Constellation would have, over ending Cx being a waste of the funds committed to it so far, etc, is all pretty incredible. All emotion and little or no information.
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:53 am
by Skipjack
Hobby space is IMHO the best resource in regards to information on the whole matter. I completely share Clarks opinion on all this as well.
I recommend you go there and read up a bit. It is very informative:
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php
Generally I dont see why the commercials would not be able to do this. I actually think that they will be faster than NASA could have ever been.
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:05 am
by Betruger
Yep. I've had hobbyspace's RSS feed piped into one of my browsers for a couple of years now. Excellent resource.
We're off topic again
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 2:50 pm
by BenTC
Josh Cryer wrote:They follow blueprints and take for granted the mathematics that structural engineers (architects) tested in their models.
Yes. Some engineers follow plans designed by other engineers. Its helps to get things done economically. The expert doesn't need to be there every step of the way during construction.
However I'm curious if things are different over there. You seem to downplay structural engineers by equating them with architects. The roles are distinctly different. [dislaimer, my father is a structural engineer] While architects are concerned with the visual aspects of design, engineers are concerned with keeping the design from falling down. Architects might manage the overall project, but they require a Certified Practicing (Structural) Engineer to sign off on their design. In Australia, this is a requirement of law. While architects need a good general knowledge of structures, to minimise wasting their time getting designs knocked back, the LIABILITY of a failed design rests entirely with the engineer.