Martin, if I am a medacious, uncomprehending, choirboy in your view, please tell me on which points I have been dishonest.

Jiminy Cricket,

> Chandra, you have patently no idea what becoming
> and being an engineer actually involves.

Ignorant of a subject I have never studied and make no claim to know? There's a surprise. I'd have more trust in you and Martin and other 'engineers' if I saw you correcting errors made by others. When you don't correct things I know to be false (yes, ignorant me) you leave me thinking maybe you don't understand things as well as you would like your 'engineer' credentials to imply. I dare say there are many here who are impressed when you let on you are an 'engineer', but I'm not one of them. Just like you are unimpressed by Monty saying he is a 'climate scientist'.

My plumber calls himself an engineer, so does my neighbour writing software and so do many others of varying trades and abilities. I have no reason to think that the majority of them have any better knowledge of climate science than I and indeed I have good reason to think that most have worse.

You may have found your branch of engineering to be especially challenging to learn when compared to becoming accomplished in a branch of climate science. But my guess though is that you have never studied those subjects at a high level and have no idea of their depth or difficulty.

Chandra,

If argument from authority is a logical fallacy, wouldn't argument for an authority be an illogical logical fallacy?

Chandra, I am not going to justify myself to you, the more words you write the more your ignorance shines through.

Confidence masquerading as intelligence will get you so far in life (the true sign of intelligence is realising how stupid you are). Sometimes you have to add value if you want respect of your peers, and it does appear you are looking for some respect. Earn it.

As you are all arguing about the validity of authority, let me tell you a little about myself: I am not a scientist, but have had a little scientific training and experience; I am not an engineer, but have had some engineering training, and do have quite a wide range of engineering experience (mainly plumbing and mechanics; some electrical – though I am convinced that electronics is actually magic). I have the highest qualification attainable for my job, and a level of experience that others envy. It is possible to gain yet higher qualifications, but not necessary for what I do; there are many others with experience that I envy. I have met many in my field who are utter buffoons and fools; I have met many with absolutely no qualifications in my field, whose work and knowledge in my field has impressed me, so, unlike Monty, I do not dismiss the qualification-less in such a perfunctory manner. Part of my work has received recognition and an award from the UKMO; there are areas I go to where an armed guard is highly recommended (but not always provided).

Chandra, this is where we differ: unlike you, I do not refer to the “thousands of climate scientists who study the subject” for authority, I only go to them for information to help my explanation; even that information is subjected to scrutiny and cross-referencing. I read and weigh the comments put forth on this site and others; many I can generally agree with, even if I can see that there may be flaws in the argument; my own arguments will be similarly flawed (I am, after all, only human). I rely upon my own basic observations as the greatest authority to refer to.

My observations have led to conclusions that could fill an entire paper, so I shall attempt to offer a brief summary: 1) yes, there has been some warming of the extra-tropical latitudes since the era of the Little Ice Age. 2) Yes, humans have caused many changes to systems on the planet. 3) Yes, the human use of fossil fuels will raise atmospheric levels of CO2.

Point 1): this increase in temperatures has generally been to the benefit of the planet, and to mankind; growing seasons have lengthened, and available arable land has increased. That this has occurred outside of natural variability has to be questioned; Occam’s Razor says not.

Point 2): most of the changes are of limited area (e.g. urban heat islands); some have been quite catastrophic for some species (e.g. the passenger pigeon); some have been beneficial for many species (e.g. those farmed, and the many invasive “pests”, i.e. not of direct benefit to humans). While environments can be changed, “The Environment” cannot be damaged.

Point 3): is the rise in CO2 levels necessarily bad for the planet? On what scientific theory is the predication of catastrophe depended? Is there any historical reference to base any catastrophic scenario upon? (Answers: questionable; none; no.) There also has to be the codicil that the human contribution to the observed increase in CO2 is considered to be a very small proportion (circa 3%), so how can it be a given that a reduction in human emissions will result in a lowering of the concentration? Also, the idea that CO2 is the driving factor in the temperature of the planet is contradicted by the “thousands of climate scientists” onto whose word you cleave, Chandra, who insist that it is, yet explain away the present “hiatus” as “other, unknown factors”.

To question the idea of cAGW: there may be GW, but is it because of A? And, is it necessarily going to be c? Unlikely, in both cases.

While I accept that there may be errors in my observations, and that I may have missed some important evidence from other people, I – and many others on this site, and others – note that the hype around this issue is just that: hype. It is the creation of a fear, a fear of something that is as insubstantial as that of the dark, yet a real fear, nonetheless, that is being fed and nurtured in the population, such that they will accept anything that is offered to ameliorate the threatened danger; if that means poor people giving already-rich people their money, then so be it. That many of the politicians who are involved with the hype are also beneficiaries from the “solutions” must also raise some questions.

Which brings us back to Monty and the BBC, with their apparent dismissal of any discussion contrary to the idea of cAGW. What I, and others on this and other sites, see is the Corporation partaking in the hype to such a degree as to call it “Propaganda”. To dismiss the contrary opinions of others because they are “not suitably qualified”, yet indulge others who are similarly “not suitably qualified” whose opinions happen to agree with “the cause” (a term used in quite a few of the “Climategate” e-mails, which has to make you wonder at their motives) does make Monty and the BBC look suspiciously like they are involved with propaganda, NOT the dissemination of the truth.

Ultimately, there has to be the question: why is it so important that there is so much fear spread? One answer could be that it is easier to control a population that is fearful than one that is not.

Jiminy Cricket/Chandra
Regards who is an engineer, I'm not sure of either of your backgrounds but you may be unaware of how vague the term engineer is in Britain compared to the rest of the world.

This is a failing of the British who think anyone who gets his hands dirty or drives a train is an engineer. For conversations with non-Britons this can cause an awful lot of confusion. It may well be the case that Technicians are considered more theoretically competent than engineers, who do the practical stuff, in the UK.

So becoming an engineer in the UK is no great shakes, elsewhere in the world engineers are highly trained knowledgeable and respected people. However a well read person in the UK should be aware of the issue.

That's an interesting perspective SandyS, and you're quite right people who would be classified otherwise, e.g. dishwasher repairers, are called, or call themselves, "engineers". But I don't personally think it dilutes the value of the brand "engineer" in the British public's eyes. We have a large number of ambiguities in the English language so the great British public is well versed in categorising the use of words in different contexts.

Finally, to become an engineer, by which I mean becomes a CEng in one of the Engineering Institutions one is required to have at least a degree, or recognised equivalent, and have had at least two years experience in a "senior" engineering role, which means not as a trainee in your chosen profession. You can't become one by calling yourself an engineer.

Just this once will take issue with Jiminy Cricket, who was brought up around 100 yards from where I was. He said the more intelligent you are the more you know you don't know, which may be right, but my experience is that the more you know, the more you know you don't know.

Which, by the way, accounts for the puzzling humility of so many of the great scientific minds. And of course it's opposite, the hubris of the uneducated we see on this blog, with people like Monty coming to the site expecting to run rings round the "anti-science, right wing, tobacco industry funded deniers" he's been told about.

Maybe he knows he doesn't know a lot now, at least that will have moved him forward.

From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.

Is Monty Mann?

Geronimo
I'm not sure of eithers cultural background, but I have been involved in discussions which included British and non-British engineers talking about the difference in the use of the word engineer. The non-British found the UK use of the word very strange, in fact one of the French engineers went as far as to describe it as a faux ami, and several British colleagues were unaware of just how wide the divide is.

This leads me to think that the Frenchman was right.

SandyS. I've had engineers working for me from Sweden, France, Germany, USA, Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Japan, Italy, UK, Netherlands, Belgium and Ireland. And I said you're right about the strange use of "engineer" by anyone who wants to do so in the UK, and it is used in a very precise way outside of the UK, which pisses off the British engineering institutions big time. But there was no big difference in the quality of the education or training between the British engineers and the others, although there were distinct national characteristics. Where there was a difference between the US and British Engineers and the rest, was that not all of them came up through the University route to engineering, some had come through the services, particularly in the US and some had come from high school and had taken apprenticeships and then gone on to get their engineering education and training later in life. Whereas in Europe and the Far East the locals invariably came to engineering from school to universities.

I don't know why that is perhaps because the US and British can remember the contributions made by Engineers and Scientists in the past who hadn't even gone to university and were self-trained. Martin A has already mentioned Oliver Heaviside, but Michael Faraday was another, and there were many more who started from humble positions with no qualifications and made scientific and engineering contributions that changed the world.

Anyway there was no discernible difference in quality between any of the different nationalities no matter which route they'd picked. Don't forget like most professions engineers tend to focus on one area after their training and become expert in that.

We just have to live with the misuse of the word engineer in the UK I'm afraid, it's traditional, but does not reflect on the quality of the real engineers we produce through our universities, or make them in any way inferior to other engineers from different countries.

Geronimo
It was Chandra's use of engineer in it's broad UK sense that triggered my initial comment.It's the cultural differences that often lead to confusion and the potential problems, famously understatement as here:

In April 1951, 650 British fighting men - soldiers and officers from the 1st Battalion, the Gloucestershire Regiment - were deployed on the most important crossing on the Imjin River to block the traditional invasion route to Seoul. The Chinese had sent an entire division - 10,000 men - to smash the isolated Glosters aside in a major offensive to take the whole Korean peninsula, and the small force was gradually surrounded and overwhelmed. After two days' fighting, an American, Major General Robert H Soule, asked the British brigadier, Thomas Brodie: "How are the Glosters doing?" The brigadier, schooled in Britain and thus British humour, replied: "A bit sticky, things are pretty sticky down there." To American ears, this did not sound too desperate, and so he ordered them to stand fast. Only 40 Glosters managed to escape

Perhaps to be remembered, even when dealing with a troll.

thinking scientist, you don't know already?
ssat, too complicated for me.

Simon Hopkinson, you think I am dishonest to the bone yet I consider myself pretty honest. I think you confuse disagreement with dishonesty although I don't really understand how. If you provided some examples as justification for my gross dishonesty, we could discuss it, but I doubt you want to.

You think I want to "kill the debate" but I am just one against many. I post once or twice a day on a few selected threads that interest me. Compared to the deluge of other posts my input is piffling. You are not obliged to debate with me - there are many like-minded people here with whom you could talk. If you are like me though you will find it more interesting debating opposing opinions than chatting with the converted.

On motives, do I need one beyond entertainment? Do you have a motive? How is it furthered by writing things you are unsure of to an obscure blog?

JC, "your ignorance shines through." - yeah you nailed me.

Radical Rodent, you sound like the 007 of the HVAC world. I am envious.

> I do not refer to the “thousands of climate scientists
> who study the subject” for authority, I only go to them
> for information to help my explanation; even that information
> is subjected to scrutiny and cross-referencing. I read and
> weigh the comments put forth ...

Tell me which academic papers you have personally "subjected to scrutiny and cross referencing" this year or so.

> I rely upon my own basic observations as the greatest
> authority to refer to.

Really? In the climate sciences? All of them? But not in electronics, right? Cos that is difficult...

Martin A, yes I did misinterpret in the way you suggest. Must be my desire to be the subject of discussion as Simon says (there's a word for that I think).

Ecclesiastical Uncle:

> From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat
> in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal
> qualifications and only half a mind.

Is there some purpose in endlessly repeating that?

Sorry, should have said that quote came from Wikipedia to confirm what I remembered.

Monty said:

... Imagine this was a debate about the importance of the Higg's boson in terms of reconfiguring particle physics. Would you not find it bizarre if the BBC had a bunch of English graduates debating this with particle physicists? Are you REALLY saying this?

I know that particle physics is a very expensive business but at least particle physicists are not proposing that we shut down huge swaths of our industry, discourage the hoi polloi from flying, cause pensioners to freeze to death, and spend countless billions of pounds on the basis of a theory about the Higgs boson. Climate scientists are supporting such policies and yet those like you expect us to accept proposals based on your theories without question, despite the fact that there has been no global warming in the lifetime of those teenagers who will very soon reach voting age.

Simon, I don’t know if I can write anything that you would not consider dishonest. You say that I “didn't address even a smidgen of what I wrote” but I am at a loss to see what I can address. Your previous post was just a catalogue of my ways of lying without providing a single example. Provide some examples, as I suggested, and we can see whether your complaint has substance.

> I think you find yourself frequently cornered;
That is just your opinion, not mine. How should I ‘address’ something that I consider untrue?

> …you invoke logical fallacies such as appeals
> to authority, arguments from ignorance/incredulity
> and broad-brush straw man arguments, and I often
> see you engaging heavily in sophistry

I see no way to address these without examples. Sophistry? “the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving”. Well at least you give me the honour of creating clever arguments.

> (I recognise it because it causes a spontaneous
> loss of will to live in others - an inevitable side-effect
> of your attempts to kill the debate that others wish
> to have).

Show me how I kill debate.  I post on a few threads once or twice a day; the rest of you post many more times than that between you.  If you want to 'debate' with each other then do so.  I don't force you to reply to me.  You do so because it is more interesting than me-tooing with like minded folks - the same reason I don't often post on 'warmist' blogs, despite reading them.

> Rather than concede the truth of points of
> note, you try to drown them in the drivel of
> minutiae until the discussion ceases to be about
> the climate subject and focuses on you, on your
> interpretation of irrelevant or unimportant detail.

Again please show me a few (or even just one) points the truth of which are so obviously true that I should concede but which I have instead drowned in drivel.

> So I perceive that you exist as a distraction from the
> important aspects of the debate and as an obstacle to
> honest debate.

See above.  If there is something more interesting to debate with others then do so.

> So is someone who does what you do "dishonest"? Perhaps it
> IS as good a word as any, but I can only observe your
> behaviour and attempt to deduce your motives.

Should I have a motive?  Can it not just be entertainment?  Do you really have a motive and how does posting things you are not entirely sure of on an obscure blog further it?

> I cannot know, unless you yourself are entirely candid.

Candid?  I'm as candid as any here and more than many.  I make no pretence of knowing more than I do, I'm very clear when I've just found out something.  What am I not being candid about?

SandyS. Yes Chandra does seem to have comprehension problems, and this, along with a content free knowledge of the topics in hand, gives rise to misunderstandings. Martin A believes they're deliberate misunderstandings and may be right. However the point you made about the use of the name "engineer" was a valid point, I didn't realise it had come from Chandra because I seldom read his posts. What I was basically saying that among the "educated" classes in the UK there was a clear distinction in their minds between a plumbing engineer, and and electrical, or aeronautical engineer, even though the words were used interchangeably. What is true however is that engineering as a profession is among the top professions in most countries outside of the UK, where it's regarded as something for the less able. This justifiably causes angst among those who've slaved to attain an Engineering degree and done the subsequent training in their speciality, especially in a country whose engineering expertise is widely admired throughout the world.