Scientists are born skeptics--that's what drives them to refine their
hypotheses, and continue research rather than accepting things on faith.
Most engineers also have inquiring minds--"what made this structure fail?"
"What is the most economical structural element that can safely carry the
predicted loads in a building?"
I am always curious about research showing that "climate change" is not
really occurring, is not caused by humans, or is nothing to worry
about. I reviewed two of the documents you linked to in your post
yesterday: the NCPA "Primer on Global Climate Change" and "Environmen
tal Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", and am sorry to say that
they don't have much credibility as far as I can see.
The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) "primer" includes
a graph (page 15) that shows CO2 levels as a function of time, but the
graph is not actually a function--meaning that the line sort of wiggles
randomly, sometimes looping back on itself such that a single point in time has
three different values for CO2 level. To me, this screams "BOGUS"--that
someone prepared a graph that LOOKS impressive but is not based on any research,
and, even worse, that the authors are intentionally misleading their
audience. The very best reason that such a graph appears is that the
editors did not catch the error--which makes one wonder what other errors the
editors did not catch.
Something else in the NCPA document caught my eye. There is a bar
graph on page 22 showing that 55.8% of "climate scientists" agree that
humans are causing global warming, 30.0% believe humans are not a cause, and
14.2% are undecided. The text states that "approximately 56% of
scientists believe humans are causing global warming." I suppose
this is meant to emphasize that just barely half of "climate scientists" believe
that humans are causing global warming--not a very strong majority.
However, another interpretation of the same data is that
"Climate scientists who believe humans are causing global warming
outnumber those who don't by a ratio of almost two to one."
The other document I reviewed was put out by the OISM, or Oregon
Institute for Science and Medicine. OISM's address is given as a
post office box in Cave Junction, Oregon. I must say that I have never,
ever, heard of the OISM (although I have been to Cave
Junction). The document you referred to does not exactly appear to
come from any mainstream scientific community. Of course one could argue
that the "mainstream" scientific community has all gone whacko and jumped on the
climate change bandwagon, abandoning the scientific method--an argument that
insults scientists in general, and engineers are almost the same as
I'm still waiting for CREDIBLE research, or a credible analyisis of
existing research, that refutes the global warming hypotheses.
Amateurish publications with incorrect graphics, or publications from fringe
"scientific" groups only insult our intelligence.
"Question Authority" is a good motto, especially when some of those
who coined the phrase are now in authority. The problem is that the
"answers" are intentionally clouded in many cases.
Thor Matteson, SE