Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Climate Change - Part 1 of 2'

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

I don’t pretend to be a scientist or Al Gore…


But it only makes sense to me (growing up in Indiana watching all the steel mills

Belch smoke and who knows what in to the atmosphere) that 150 years of pollution

Has to have SOME effect on the planet.


It HAS to.


Again, even it doesn’t, which I can’t believe, why not TRY and do things better?




I used tobacco as an example of how ridiculous some of these scientific studies can get, not

To insinuate that smoking is affecting the plant, just a few million pairs of lungs.




David L. Fisher SE PE

Senior Principal


Fisher and Partners

372 West Ontario

Suite 301

Chicago 60654


312.622.0409 (m)


312.573.1726 (f)



-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Polhemus [mailto:bill(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:13 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: Re: Climate Change - Part 1 of 2'


David L. Fisher wrote:

Actually, the vast majority of grants come from the private sector in the form of R and D.


You are correct however, that the “scientific community” works at the pleasure of those

That supply the money to operate the labs.


e.g., “New study – smoking doesn’t cause any long term health benefits” funded by Phillip Morris.


Or, “New drug XYZ is a miracle cure for cholesterol/diabetes/the clap” brought to you by a major

Pharmaceutical company that owns the rights to drug XYZ.


Its really the same thing in our industry, AISC and ACI sponsor competing “studies” to prove that

Steel/concrete is a better/cooler/cheaper structural material.



It all comes down to common sense; if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.



“Follow the Money” works as well now as it did during Watergate.

You can provide any such examples you wish (though I'm not sure how tobacco is tied up with global climate change in your mind).

My point is that there are plenty of reasons to be suspicious of the quasi-sacred "scientific community." And anyone who thinks that scientific theory doesn't involve an element of "faith" doesn't understand the definition of "hypothesis."

To me, there is miles and miles of distance between the notions of "climate change" (which appears to be a natural attribute of this planet, if it's history is discerned correctly) and of "human origin" of that change. But proponents seem to think that we should just conflate the two. And of course, they want us to trust them with heaps and heaps of treasure, in abiding faith that they know exactly what they're doing.

"Hockey stick" graphs notwithstanding.

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * Read list FAQ at: * * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to: * * * * Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) Remember, any email you * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web * site at: ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********