Pearcegate

Fred Pearce is going down the David Rose road publishing fabricated quotes. Gavin Schmidt in a letter to New Scientist (so far unpublished there) writes:

In the piece entitled “Climate sceptics and scientists attempt peace
deal”

Fred Pearce includes a statement about me that is patently untrue.

“But the leaders of mainstream climate science turned down the gig,
including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who said the science was settled so
there was nothing to discuss.”

This is completely made up. My decision not to accept the invitation to
this meeting was based entirely on the organiser’s initial diagnosis of
the cause of the ‘conflict’ in the climate change debate. I quote from
their introductory letter:

“At this stage we are planning to have a workshop where the main
scientific issues can be discussed, so that some clarity on points of
agreement and disagreement might be reached. We would try to stay off
the policy issues, and will also exclude personal arguments.

The issues we have in mind are Medieval Warm Period, ice, climate
sensitivity, and temperature data. We would hope to have smaller groups
discussing these in some detail, hopefully with scientists who are very
familiar with the technical issues to lead the discussion.”


Since, in my opinion, the causes of conflict in the climate change
debate relate almost entirely to politics and not the MWP, climate
sensitivity or ‘ice’, dismissing this from any discussion did not seem
likely to be to help foster any reconciliation.

At no point did I declare that the ‘science was settled’ and that there
was nothing to discuss. Indeed, I am on record as saying the exact
opposite

Pearce might well note that even I am included in the “spectrum” that
“disagree[s] with Schmidt”!

Fred Pearce did not interview me for this piece. I should like to
request that in future, if my views are of interest, that he (or anyone
else) should actually ask me directly. I am not hard to contact.

Yours respectfully,

Gavin Schmidt

PS. I am not a ‘leader of mainstream climate science’ either.

Commenting on Pierce and the workshop are:

Things Break:

I’d ask whether New Scientist wants this kind of indefensible behavior associated with their brand, but clearly they’ve given Pearce free reign to troll for page views however he sees fit.

William Connolley:

And… if you haven’t been part of the climate wars, you might wonder why exactly any of this matters. But “the science is settled” has been one of the mantras used almost exclusively by climate denialists as a term of insult for those actually doing science (Pearce is fully aware of all this back story, of course. He isn’t using the phrase accidentally or carelessly). It is a feeble attempt at a double bind: is the science settled? ha ha, then you can’t be a scientist because real science is never settled. Is the science not settled? Oh great, then we don’t need to do anything until it is. The answer, of course, is that we know now (and indeed have for years) enough about the science to know that the world is warming now due to human activity, and will be warming more into the future from more anthro stuff.

Tamino: “This isn’t a misquote — it’s just a fabrication.”

Joe Romm:

Any conference where most of the participants are obsessed with the Hockey Stick, consider it “totemic,” and think its underlying science is unresolved simply isn’t a serious scientific meeting. Similarly, no serious journalist should simply publish two sentences questioning the underlying science without any quote from a real climate scientist or citation to the NAS and the multiple, confirming studies.

Scott Mandia:

Pearce states …

Equally contentious is the charge – the pet subject of several in Lisbon – that the IPCC is “in denial” about whether ocean oscillations, which can absorb and release heat from the atmosphere but are not well represented in climate models, could explain the global warming of the past 40 years.

How does a warming ocean cause nights to warm faster than days, the troposphere to warm while the upper layers are cooling, winters to warm faster than summers, measured increases in downwelling heat, and measured decreases in outgoing heat from the planet?

What magic are the oceans performing that are mirroring the effects of greenhouse warming while simultaneously stopping the effects of massive increases in heat-trapping gases?

Eli Rabett:

Many have placed their bets on Fred. Eli is not quite so sure, where, better put, from whom would Pearce have gotten his information. Jerry Ravitz who is trying to muscle his way in springs to mind and, of course, luminaries such as the Steves are right up there.

Update: At Judith Curry’s blog tallbloke writes

To set the record straight:

Because I was an ad hoc member of the invite committee I got an email asking my advice on who to invite in lieu of Gavin Schmidt and some other prominent people who had declined. The organisers inadvertantly included Gavin’s response on that email, and when I was asked one evening in Lisbon why certain people weren’t there I gave a quick praisee, including a brief reference to Gavin’s response. This made it’s way to Fred, hence the reference in his blog piece reporting on the conference.

I would just stress at this point that what I said constitutes my opinion and not what Gavin said verbatim. However I would also like to say that Gavin’s complaint to the New Scientist does not include any praisee of the passage in his original response which gave rise to my brief summary. I therefore reject Gavin’s claim that I ‘made stuff up’, and respectfully suggest that we can lay this one to rest if in a spirit of openness Gavin simply reproduces his response so people can see for themselves what he said.

If I am assailed by accusations that I have wrongfully maligned Gavin with my brief summary comment I may feel obliged to defend myself with a closer paraphrase.

Yes, they had an ether crank on the invite committee.

Update 2: Gavin Schmidt posts his actual email:

Thanks for the invitation. However, I’m a little confused at what conflict you feel you are going to be addressing? The fundamental conflict is of what (if anything) we should do about greenhouse gas emissions (and other assorted pollutants), not what the weather was like 1000 years ago. Your proposed restriction against policy discussion removes the whole point. None of the seemingly important ‘conflicts’ that are perceived in the science are ‘conflicts’ in any real sense within the scientific community, rather they are proxy arguments for political positions. No ‘conflict resolution’ is possible between the science community who are focussed on increasing understanding, and people who are picking through the scientific evidence for cherries they can pick to support a pre-defined policy position.

You would be much better off trying to find common ground on policy ideas via co-benefits (on air pollution, energy security, public health water resources etc), than trying to get involved in irrelevant scientific ‘controversies’.

I don’t think it is accurate to summarise this as “the science is settled”.

Update 3:
Steve McIntyre:

I can confirm that Fred Pearce read Gavin’s email to the organizers declining the invitation to the conference, because I (by chance) happened to be sitting with Pearce when he was provided with a copy of Gavin’s email and observed him reading it carefully.

tallbloke

I got Fred to read it out loud to Steve and Ross. So he couldn’t make notes at the same time. And we had a couple of beers, which may be why he didn’t remember it very clearly later.

Compare with his earlier comment “to set the record straight”

when I was asked one evening in Lisbon why certain people weren’t there I gave a quick praisee, including a brief reference to Gavin’s response. This made it’s way to Fred, hence the reference in his blog piece reporting on the conference.

Deceitful, isn’t he?

Comments

  1. #1 John
    February 6, 2011

    Jakerman – conspiracy! Seriously though, it should be obvious to everyone that the conference was a trap. If scientists turn up, the sceptics and their crackpot theories are legitimised. If not, it’s proof that scientists are scared of debate. It’s lose-lose in the eyes of the denialist media either way.

  2. #2 Quiet Waters
    February 6, 2011

    “I can confirm that Fred Pearce read Gavin’s email to the organizers declining the invitation to the conference, because I (by chance) happened to be sitting with Pearce when he was provided with a copy of Gavin’s email and observed him reading it carefully.”

    Is this necessarily the case, or is McI, realising that the anonymous blogger known as Tallbloke* is now a liability to the cause, simultaneously cutting him loose and sacrificing him to the AGW lions as a diversion?

    *Anyone know what Watts has to say about Tallblokes anonymity? After all I hear he’s hot on that sort of thing at his place.

  3. #3 Barry Woods
    February 6, 2011

    Another way of looking at it was Tallbloke was trying to take the heat off of Fred Pearce…

    It looks like Fred DID read the email. and paraphrased it into ‘the science is settled’. I think he probably regrets it now, don’t you..

    Why attack TallBloke – FRED is a grown up journalist, he wrote the words, fully aware of how it would be perceived.
    He could have commented on Gavins email in many other ways.

    I don’t know if you are all aware of this, but attacking Fred Pearce, appears to a sceptic like me thet the pro AGW crowd are ‘turning on each other’

    Fred writes for the Guardian the most PRO AGW paper in the UK, George Monbiot and the Guardian have no less than 2 Deniars Halls of Shame.

    Pearcegate, is a massive own goal.

    A flip comment that could have been ignored, yurned into something else that actually shows up the worst in the pro-blogosphere.. If you can’t keep Fred Pearce onside and the Guardian.. what next, disown Roger Harrabin, Roger Black (oh Romm did that allready)

  4. #4 Marco
    February 6, 2011

    Barry, you really don’t get it. Pearce is not excused if he merely took Tallbloke’s words as accurate. Nor is Tallbloke excused for mangling Schmidt’s comments.

    And unlike some others, many here value factual accuracy higher than being part of a camp. Nor are most pro-AGW: we really do NOT want AGW to be correct, but know that nature has a knack of not caring about what we want.

  5. #5 Barry Woods
    February 6, 2011

    I’m not talking about any excuses..

    Fred read them for himslef, thus he knows what was said by Gavin.. Thus he choose to right them and will have to live with them

    I wonder if this will come up at his next little conference…

    Follow the link to the invitation at Bishop Hill (I don’t know if Deltoid allows direct links to pdf files)

    Carbonumdrums.
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/2/5/carbonundrums.html

    Panellists include Fiona Fox, Bob Ward, Roger Harrabin, Fred Pearce, Naomi Oreskes and Rasmus Benestad.

  6. #6 chris
    February 6, 2011

    “I don’t know if you are all aware of this, but attacking Fred Pearce, appears to a sceptic like me thet the pro AGW crowd are ‘turning on each other’”

    That’s pretty silly Barry. What’s this imaginary “pro-AGW” crowd? Scientists and indeed most rational people choose to address the evidence (given the chance) and make informed and honest interpretations. Pearce used to make pretty reliable, informative and readable accounts of scientific topics. We can see objectively that he chooses occasionally to misepresent issues on climate science these days (New Scientist seems to find this acceptable…one of the reasons we stopped our subscription some time ago).

    It’s unfortunate, but not really a big deal. If someone chooses to misrepresent things in a rather blatant manner, we should recognise and point that out. But there’s no sense in which most of us consider journalists or other commentators/interpreters are some sort of “spokesperson” for what you seem to consider is a “crowd”.

    Anyone that tells the truth and represents the evidence honestly is fine by me. Isn’t that the bottom line? Pearce (and this curious “tallbloke” person) seem to have different standards…

  7. #7 Barry Woods
    February 6, 2011

    The Guardian environment journalists, I would describe as the Pro AGW crowd, and people like Baroness Worthington (who helped write the climate change act) she studied English.

    my view is that this may turn a molehill into a mountain..

  8. #8 Jeff Harvey
    February 6, 2011

    Barry is full of you-know-what.

    The Guardian is hardly ‘ pro-AGW’. Like most of the corporate msm, they may talk a lot about the scientific evidence underpinning the current warming, but they say very little about what should be done about it. This is because they do not want to offend (e.g. ‘ drive off’) their corporate advertisers or offend their corporate owners. This is hardly any different from any of the other mainstream outlets, which juxtapose articles warning of the dangers of climate change with advertisements for cheap flights to some exotic destinations or for luxurious cars or SUVs. Its utter hypocrisy but it characterizes the msm very well. David Cromwell at MediaLens has discussed this issue at length many times.

    As for those arguing that the evidence for warming are ‘turning on each other’, this is ridiculous. The empirical evidence for AGW is growing every year, forcing the denialist camp into more and more desperate tactics. As I have said before, 20 years ago AGW was a ‘doomsday myth’ according to the denialists; as more evidence came in then it suddenly became ‘natural’ (e.g. solar forcing) or unexceptional (e.g. MWP) in historical terms; wait for a few more years and the denialist crowd will be vanquished entirely but then they will claim that although the warming is anthropogenic, by then it will be too late for mitigation so we will just have to adapt. We are already headed towards this scenario. In every instance the status quo is retained.

  9. #9 Bernard J.
    February 6, 2011

    [Barry Woods](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3223342).

    Read this carefully and think slowly…

    A fellow – let’s call him Toby – opens a tin of kerosene and splashes it all over a house. His mate who, for argument’s sake, we’ll call Percy, lights a match and throws it on the kerosene.

    Which one is the arsonist?

  10. #10 jakerman
    February 6, 2011

    >*The Guardian environment journalists, I would describe as the Pro AGW crowd*

    Who cares what label you try to bestow on Pearce Barry?

    I call it Fred Pearce practicing bad journalism and getting called out on that. And I call out your attempt at hand-waving.

  11. #11 Barry Woods
    February 6, 2011

    Maybe the Guardian as a whole..

    Yet, I’m thinking of the Guardian Environment team, the guardian invested heavily in the environment section a few years ago.. Surley you qould agree that they are pro-AGW?

    if only relative to all the other UK MSM media..

    Damian Carrington, (environment editor) even thought the 10:10 ‘no pressure’ video was a good idea.

    If the Guardian ever back away from AGW, then the rest of the UK MSM will follow.(and the BBC)

    I was surprised to see this article today, very critical of windfarms, even quoting the Daily Mail!
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/04/wind-farms-nimbyism

  12. #12 Rog Tallbloke
    February 6, 2011

    @79 “Simple questions for tallbloke:
    1) What engineering degree do you hold?
    2) What technical/engineering work have you had during your employment?
    3) Why do you have comments closed on your blog regarding this “tempest in a teapot”?
    4) Are you willing to make a public statement (reply) concerning your understanding of the true value of pi?
    Stu”

    1) My degree is in History and Philosophy of science. I studied this subject after I was forced to take a break from engineering due to an injury. My engineering qualification is HNC-HND

    2) Working in the engineering industry I gained experience in the following fields relevant to study of Earth’s climate systems in addition to my theoretical learning:
    Metrology
    Fluid dynamics
    Mechanical design
    Stats analysis
    Stress and shear calculation
    Materials science and testing
    Vibration and resonance damping and control

    I machined the core casting for the CERN particle accelerator with a five axis CNC. And a swine of a job it was.

    3) I stated that on the post.

    4) Sure, what would you like me to say? DO you think I’d have been able to do the CERN job without knowing it correctly? :)

  13. #13 lord_sidcup
    February 6, 2011

    I did wonder why people seemed to be taking tallbloke’s word for it that he was the source.

    Basically, we are back where we were – Fred Pearce has descended into cruddy journalism, tallbloke is a non-entity, and Barry Woods is busy trying to distract.

  14. #14 GSW
    February 6, 2011

    @Harvey
    @Jakerman

    I think you will find that referring to the Guardian as ‘pro AGW’ is not controversial. The ‘Team’ is fairly one sided – Randerson,Moonbat,Carrington, Hickman and even the much criticised Pearce.

    Pearce has been peddling Climate Alarmism for years, publishing numerous books on the subject.

    e.g. The Last Generation: How Nature Will Take Her Revenge For Climate Change.

    How idiotically extreme does the discussion have to get for someone like Pearce to be turned on as somehow betraying “the cause”, going “native”, or in the language of 1984 “Becoming an agent of McIntyre”.

    The Guardian Environment Network is pretty one sided; The usual propaganda sites, Realclimate, skepticalscience, even 10:10(?)

    Don’t spout rubbish about “corporate msm” the Guardian has bought into this, hook, line and sinker.

  15. #15 zoot
    February 6, 2011

    The term ‘pro AGW’ is basically meaningless, like ‘pro gravity’.

  16. #16 Jeff Harvey
    February 6, 2011

    GSW,

    You are as full of it as Barry Woods. But this is hardly surprising since you claimed that mathematical modelers are not scientists. Only a Dunning-Kruger disciple could make such a fatuous remark. All this shows is that you aren’t a scientist, either.

    The Guardian is only reporting on the state-of-the-art with respect to the huge amount of empirical evidence in support of the human fingerprint on the current warming. In this respect at least they are being intellectually honest, which can hardly be said of the right-wing media which routinely distort science in promotion of a brazenly de-regulatory agenda. This is why the corporate media – especially on the political right – are full of pundits who are self-confessed ‘interpreters of interpretations’. However, supporting the evidence for AGW is as far as the msm on the left goes – when it comes to saying that much of it is driven by overconsumption amongst the privileged few in the developed world, or suggesting that changes are necessary in ongoing policies in an attempt to deal with the looming environmental and social consequences, they are suddenly mute.

    Before you make yourself look more silly than you already have, I suggest you learn a little bit about who funds the msm including the Guardian. Learn a little about the workings of the corporate media before wading in here with lame remarks that show you know nothing about it.

    Lastly, your claim that Realclimate is a ‘propaganda’ site reveals your gross scientific illiteracy. In your view, the thousands of peer-reviewed articles published in the pages of the most rigid journals must all also be scientific ‘propaganda’, whereas anything you read from wretched sites like WUWT or Morano’s, or the Idso’s, et al. is probably ‘sound science’. This shows that your opinions are weighted more through a political ideology than by scientific facts. But, as I have said, the denial lobby does not target the scientific community with their nonsense but are only interested in reaching a lay audience who are anxious to maintain the status quo. I must hand it to the denial lobby though: with an infinite amount of corporate money sloshing around in their PR fund bucket, they have been immensely successful, at creating controversy where there is broad (> 90%) consensus, and especially amongst the climate and Earth scientists doing the actual research. The denial lobby has scraped together a loose band of mostly pseudo-scientists, most of them retired or who haven’t published much in the empirical literature, and have managed to create the impression that what we know about the human impact on the global climate is ‘controversial’. Its a remarkable achievement given that the weight of empirical evidence lies on the other side.

  17. #17 Jeff Harvey
    February 6, 2011

    Two examples of the ‘left-wing’ media in the UK with respect to climate change from ML:

    First, an [exchange with George Monbiot](http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/070704_melting_ice_sheets.php)

  18. #18 GSW
    February 6, 2011

    @Jeff

    Meaningless “Comfort Statements” I think, or late stage paranoia – Take your pick! ;)

  19. #19 Jeff Harvey
    February 6, 2011

    [Second link:](http://www.medialens.org/alerts/05/051213_insane_society_climate_change.php)

    (See also, ‘Guardians of Power’ by David Edwards and David Cromwell (2006).

  20. #20 Bernard J.
    February 6, 2011
  21. #21 Jeff Harvey
    February 6, 2011

    GSW says, “Meaningless “Comfort Statements” I think, or late stage paranoia”.

    This sounds like a good self-description of yourself. I still want to know how many peer-reviewed journals you regularly read and if you are a professional scientist in any field.

    My guess is ‘very few’ (or none) and ‘not’. Instead, my guess is that you are another armchair expert who relies on the usual sources (WUWT, C02.corg, Morano, CA etc.) for their ‘informed’ discussion (if one can call it that).

    I am glad to see people you and Barry contribute your useless musings here, though. It shows how much the ‘other side’ depends on know-nothing libertarians for their support.

  22. #22 GSW
    February 6, 2011

    @Jeff

    Thanks for the clarification Jeff – I’m going for late stage paranoia.

  23. #23 luminous beauty
    February 6, 2011

    GSW,

    The fact that you characterize the best understanding of the science as ‘pro-AGW’ and represent it as a difference of opinion between journalists, indicates you couldn’t give a bloody fuck about the science and would rather ignore it in favor of your own narcissistic political beliefs.

    Here’s a clue; Nature doesn’t negotiate, nor take into account popular opinion polls. On one ‘side’ of this ‘debate’ we have four hundred years of progressively refined objective understanding of how the natural world works, and on the other ‘side’, Mr. Potato Head. You’ve made your choice. You will have to live with it. Don’t expect much sympathy when time reveals you to be a blinkered idiot.

  24. #24 chek
    February 6, 2011

    [GSW said:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3224343) “Thanks for the clarification Jeff – I’m going for late stage paranoia”.

    Keep at it GSW, you’re nearly there already.

  25. #25 Ian Forrester
    February 6, 2011

    tallbloke is a double ether crank, he believes in some thing that was discredited oooh so long ago and from his insane postings and other beliefs he must have sniffed some ether at some time. Real scientists will tell you that solvent is not good for neurons.

    The fact that he would have us believe that they would let anyone with a “degree in History and Philosophy of Science” anywhere near such a complicated effort as a piece of the CERN project tells me a lot about his self deception.

    Tallbloke, do you actually mean “I turned on the CNC machine in the morning and turned it off at night and kept it clean for the real engineers and scientists”?

  26. #26 barry woods
    February 6, 2011

    121 strange analogy..

    Personally I would think both the petrol thrower and match lighter were both rather unpleasant people to know… and bot at fault.. though, the match thrower is slightly more the ‘nutter’

    Crucify Fred all that you will.. He is NOT on my side…

    I’ll sit back and watch, as you eat your own…
    Without the media, the CAGW delusion will fade away.

    You have done wonders in helping sceptics, by alienating Fred this way.. Gavin could just have laughed and said, silly fred, I said this.. and showed the email…

    Fred if you noticed, felt able to call many in attendance cranks!!!

    Now, we have an example of the hysteria of the AGW crowd..

  27. #27 Hank Roberts
    February 6, 2011

    Seems to me the lesson here is:

    Guys who can’t even keep straight which of them said or read what, while they were at dinner together last week, will never “put to rest any skeptical debate about the basic physics of gaseous infrared radiative transfer.”

    And it’s pointless for JC to keep trying with them.

  28. #28 J Bowers
    February 6, 2011

    Re. 115 GSW — “The Guardian Environment Network is pretty one sided; The usual propaganda sites, Realclimate, skepticalscience, even 10:10(?)”

    Climate Progress and Skeptical Science as well, now. Good ol’ Grauniad ;)

    Even though GSW and I are in complete opposition at the Guardin, I actually agree with him to a degree about the Guardian, and I don’t see that as a criticism of the Guardian, either. In the UK it basically goes: Guardian and Independent on one side, as a counter to the Telegraph, Mail and Express (and Times I suppose). Both Mobiot and Pearce have been critical of Jones and CRU, although FP far more. This is more to do with the high value they hold on FOIA, more so in Monbiot’s case, due to FOIA exposing government corruption. Pearce doesn’t actually seem to be too involved with the Guardian these days.

    Fair comment, GSW? (does your CIF nickname begin with N or C, by any chance?)

  29. #29 Chris O'Neill
    February 6, 2011

    barry woods:

    Without the media, the CAGW delusion will fade away

    and the earth’s surface temperature will sink back to the little ice age temperatures the astronomical forcing says it should be.

    Promises, promises.

  30. #30 GSW
    February 6, 2011

    @JBowers #128

    Fair comment JB, thanks.

    and No on CiF my nickname does not begin with N or C. I trying to think who you mean though! ;)

  31. #31 luminous beauty
    February 6, 2011

    GSW,

    The fact that you characterize the best understanding of the science as ‘pro-AGW’ and represent it as a difference of opinion between journalists, indicates you couldn’t care less about the science and would rather ignore it in favor of your own narcissistic political beliefs.

    Here’s a clue; Nature doesn’t negotiate, nor take into account popular opinion polls. To paraphrase Bill Maher, on one ‘side’ of this ‘debate’ we have four hundred years of progressively refined objective understanding of how the natural world works, and on the other ‘side’, Mr. Potato Head. You’ve made your choice. You will have to live with it. Don’t expect much sympathy when time reveals you to be a blinkered fool.

  32. #32 MapleLeaf
    February 6, 2011

    Like all trolls, GSW has quite the appetite. Please don’t feed him anymore.

  33. #33 dhogaza
    February 6, 2011

    Barry Woods:

    Why attack TallBloke

    1. He publicly shared private e-mail that he got by accident (wasn’t even sent to him by Gavin). To the press, compounding the ethical sin. Of course, in a world where people like you defend the stealing and publication of e-mail from CRU I suppose you aren’t able to see the problem.

    2. He’s a liar.

    Either reason is sufficient.

  34. #34 dhogaza
    February 6, 2011

    Ian Stewart:

    The fact that he would have us believe that they would let anyone with a “degree in History and Philosophy of Science” anywhere near such a complicated effort as a piece of the CERN project tells me a lot about his self deception.
    Tallbloke, do you actually mean “I turned on the CNC machine in the morning and turned it off at night and kept it clean for the real engineers and scientists”?

    He has an HNC-HND and is apparently a qualified *machinist*, which is consistent with his claim to having *machined* such a part used in CERN.

    The crap here is that machinists aren’t engineers, at least in the US. I don’t know about UK usage, perhaps he can claim to be an “engineer” in the same sense that in the US a train locomotive driver is an “engineer”.

    But that’s not how he’s been [mis]representing himself, he’s been [mis]representing himself as being an engineer, as in someone who has completed an academic course in some branch of *engineering*, such as electrical, electronic, civil or software engineering.

    Here’s a description of both HNC and HNDs:

    You can study for a Higher National Certificate (HNC) and a Higher National Diploma (HND) in work-related subjects.

    Higher National Diplomas are higher education diplomas given for successfully completing practical, vocational training that prepares the student for a career in a particular area.

    These are practical qualifications offered by universities and many colleges.

    You can often go on from an HND to study a degree, if you decide that is what you want to do.

    Tallbloke: nothing to be ashamed of, but you were a *machinist*, not an *engineer*, and quit claiming to be so.

  35. #35 Barry Woods
    February 6, 2011

    133
    As far as I’m aware Chatham House rules applied to Fred Pearce as well… Pearce read it for himself.. I’m sure Tallbloke can speak for himself.

    Someone ask Pearce…
    and frankly I don’t care.. if you cannot see that fighting amongst yourselves is not damaging your ‘side’. Well good luck to you..

    What is the bigger issue… Tallbloke mentioning something, Fred reading it for himself.
    OR FRED writing about it.. You decide.

    And i agree with J Bowers.. The environment team at the Guardian would be considered pro, as would the Independent… The Daily Mail, is the Daily Wail ;), The Times is behind a paywall, so who cares.. and the Telegraph, well it has Booker and Delingpole…..

    But it also has Louise Gray and Geoffrey Lean (playing both sides?)

    Actually, fair point when did Pearce last write anything for the Guardian?

    I just see this as the beginning end of times for the CAGW delusion.. they turn on each other. That is what is coming across (Romm is at it as well)

  36. #36 dhogaza
    February 6, 2011

    Upon some googling, it appears that in the UK “qualified engineer” can refer to job classifications that aren’t “engineering” as professionals would use the word.

    Well, we do hear phrases like “sanitary engineer” in job applications in the US.

    So perhaps I’m a bit too harsh above. However, I do think Tallbloke’s been using the “engineer” word in order to puff his credentials … “qualified engineer” makes him sound a lot more sciencey than “machinist”.

  37. #37 MapleLeaf
    February 6, 2011

    This new “information” actually makes Pearce look even worse. Pearce read a private email, passed that information on to McIntyre who has a blog and could have shared it with his rabid followers to twist and distort at will (to his credit he didn’t).

    And even after reading the email Fred still managed to misrepresent Gavin’s position. Fred wrote that “who [referring to Schmidt] said….”. What Fred wrote is not what Gavin said at all….

    Journalistic misconduct much? And of course we have not even begun to highlight the other mistakes in Fred’s diatribe.

    And for the record, it seems that Pearce long ago went to the dark side, as far back as late 2009 in fact.

    The Lisbon farce was a huge fail for the contrarians and wannabe skeptics. So sad that they cannot see that. Instead they have to fabricate claims that the people who value facts and science are fighting amongst themselves, when in fact it was McIntyre who threw tallbloke under the bus, and Curry is trying to calm her rabid and foaming at the mouth band of acolytes. Not to mention the “skeptics” fighting amongst themselves about the greenhouse effect at Curry’s place and at Spencer’s place, Watts “firing” Goddard and Spencer’s scathing critique of L&C09 :)

    No, rather it seems the rabid denialists and contrarians and “skeptics” are turning on each other. Delightful.

    Maybe someone should file a complaint to the EC for a possible misappropriation of funds by the workshop organizers. After all, I’m sure EC funds are surely not permitted to be used to sponsor the circus that was Lisbon…;)

  38. #38 Jeff Harvey
    February 6, 2011

    *I just see this as the beginning end of times for the CAGW delusion*

    Utter bilge. This kind of remark belies a complete lack of scientific reality and is proof that Barry Woods is to be ignored. Also, with respect to ‘hysteria’, I suggest Barry reads some of the choice comments made about scientists (including myself) from the anti-environmental crowd [I would describe the AGW denial lobby as anti-environmentalists because they also distort science in pursuit of a political agenda, and are also largely populated by the same wretched coterie of right wingers/libertarians/pundits and generally poorly qualified scientists]. Some of these comments by the anti’s make anything said by the pro-science group who support the large and accumulating body in favor of AGW appear to be bland. Check out ‘Rational Readings on Environment Concerns’ for some of these slurs; more recently, read up stuff said about James Hansen or Kevin Trenbarth etc. and you’ll get the idea.

    Lastly, I find it amusing that people like Barry and GSW discuss the climate change issue as if there were ‘two sides’ embroiled in some rigorous scientific debate. As I said before, only people who are clueless about the way science works could write such flippant remarks. The debate should now be based on (1) how serious AGW is likely to be on natural and managed ecosystems in the near to medium term, and what the concomitant effects are likely to be on the material economy, and (2) what measures are necessary to deal with warming at both regional and global levels. The scientific debate as to the extent of the human fingerprint should be over. Amongst most in the scientific community, this debate IS over. Its only amongst the right wing punditocracy and those who have a vested interest in denial and those laypeople who wish to believe them that the science is still unclear. I have seen the same form of denial used to downplay a range of other anthropogenic threats across the biosphere, including the destruction of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and their biodiversity.

    The denial industry is therefore not restricted to climate change. Its an industry that covers a lot more than that.

  39. #39 chek
    February 6, 2011

    [Barry Woods said:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3225022) “I just see this as the beginning end of times for the CAGW delusion”.

    Of course that’s how you see it Barry, because you’re well and truly in denial. You’re a walking dictionary definition, even gettin’ down wid de street-talk slang as in C-AGW.

    But never mind the tawdry, self-serving ‘conferences’ and their tragic, misbegotten, unseen and uncalculated fallouts as the denail machine media whores itself and desperately tries to grab onto the coat tails of history; those are your heroes.
    Meanwhile every major weather event tradedy across the globe, coming as thick and fast as they are, pushing their way onto global front pages will force even the most stupid and intellectually stubborn and downright recalcitrant of the populace to womder does someone have a handle on all this. The answer of course is that someone does. They’re the ones who predicted more extreme weather events more often.

    But it most certainly ain’t McIntyre’s menagerie and gaggle of grotesques and stooges comfort whispering amongst themselves about beginning of ends.

  40. #40 luminous beauty
    February 6, 2011

    >if you cannot see that fighting amongst yourselves is not damaging your ‘side’. Well good luck to you..

    Au contraire, M. Woods. Robust debate over reasonable and rational disagreements in the good faith interest of arriving at mutual objective consensus is how fruitful science and scholarship is done.

    Given this is a disagreement about semantics, allow me to deconstruct it for you. Refuting the notion “The Science is settled” is a favored strawman, frequently invoked by your ‘side’, without so much as a single primary sourced reference to any scientist, much less any kind of compelling argument that it is a widespread belief among researchers professionally involved in climate science. Such a general all-inclusive statement having scientific meaning is not something to which any well trained scientist should agree, given the long since unlamented death of the philosophy of Logical Positivism. In the case of Gavin Schmidt there is, indeed, compelling a priori evidence that he does not hold any such belief. To smear him with such a willful semantically biased interpretation of his words is dishonest and self serving.

    This is not to say that some particular collection of widely corroborated and mutually consilient empirical findings and their explanations may not be well enough established, if not perfectly and completely established, to the point of being robust consensus theory, even though still open to further refinement and correction to specific remaining uncertainties and incompletenesses. Such is true of all scientific theories.

    OTOH, the seeming solidarity displayed by your ‘side’, despite the sprawling incoherent plethora of mutually inconsistent contrarian arguments is indicative of group think.

  41. #41 John Mashey
    February 6, 2011

    1) Whether Tallbloke is or was an engineer is fairly irrelevant. As noted, “engineer” is a vague term and even an engineering PhD is no guarantee of credibility with regard to knowledge of climate science. Even a physics PhD, a NAS membership in physics, or a Physics Nobel are no guarantee either, see study on APS Petition, in which examples of all can be found.

    2) If Tim wants to have a thread devoted to serious discussion of which disciplines correlate with climate anti-science, we could have one, and get serious.

    3) But, the following is *not* serious:

    #77 “Always the engineers”
    Let X = set of deniers, anti-science advocates, whatever
    Let E = set of those with {academic degrees, actual work experience, calling themselves engineers

    #77 appears to be:
    ALL X ARE E

    In support of that, people keep saying:
    SOME E ARE X. absolutely true.
    (Again, I live in Silicon Valley, I’ve hired dozens of engineers, I’ve been an engineering Director or VP in 3 different engineering-oriented computer companies, have often interacted with engineers in manufacturing, automotive, aerospace, petroleum.)

    Anecdotal evidence is not support for:
    ALL E ARE X
    E ARE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT-E TO BE X

    and neither of those is support for:
    ALL X ARE E

  42. #42 dhogaza
    February 6, 2011

    Whether Tallbloke is or was an engineer is fairly irrelevant.

    I disagree. I wondered why a webmaster would be picked to help lead an international conference on resolving climate science. He’s not even a particularly notable member of the denialsphere or blogscience crowd. My guess is that his “I’m a qualified engineer” puffery may well have had something to do with it.

  43. #43 lord_sidcup
    February 6, 2011

    barry woods = postmodern man.

  44. #44 Barry Woods
    February 6, 2011

    well. I seem to have taken the heat off Fred Pearce… ;)

    what will the general public do, if the anomalies go negative/

    I did say IF… and of course a year or 2 negative, would not disprove AGW either. ie short term entirely possible weather variability..

    but what would the general public and politicians say.
    food for thought?

  45. #45 GSW
    February 6, 2011

    @Barry

    Is this a reference to NOAA ‘Scientist’ post on the extended La Nina over at WUWT?

  46. #46 adelady
    February 6, 2011

    gsw – it might be a reference to something current, but I’m absolutely certain I’ve seen **exactly** the same question posed before – some time last year. Can’t track it down just now, but I’ll see if I can find it.

  47. #47 Zibethicus
    February 6, 2011

    139: “Barry Woods said: “I just see this as the beginning end of times for the CAGW delusion”.

    Let’s see if I’ve got this correct:

    1) Petro-funded ‘charity’ organises ‘reconciliation’ conference.

    2) ‘Ad hoc committee’ invites 75% Rent-a-Pseudo-Skeptics, 25% scientists to said ‘conference’.

    3) Invitation announces that no politics will be discussed, but rather the usual suspects, i.e. MWP etc etc.

    4) Schmidt refuses to attend, /NOT/ because ‘the science is settled’ but because “[y]our proposed restriction against policy discussion removes the whole point. None of the seemingly important ‘conflicts’ that are *perceived* in the science are ‘conflicts’ in any real sense within the scientific community, rather they are proxy arguments for political positions.” (Schmidt, per. Rabett Run.)

    5) Despite this e-mail from Schmidt, Pearce claims in print that Schmidt had refused because ‘the science is settled’.

    6) Denialists engage in onanistic glee.

    7) Schmidt protests and publicises his actual reasons as given.

    8) Ether-crank Tallbloke rushes in to try to take the heat off Pearce, claiming that he, Tallbloke, had given Pearce a ‘praisee’ of Schmidt’s email, which he claims that Pearce did not see.

    9) McIntyre says that “I can confirm with absolute certainty that Fred Pearce read Gavin’s email” because he saw Pearce read it. (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/what-gavin-said-gate/)

    10) Tallbloke engages in vertiginous gymnastics, in order to avoid answering the question as to why he said that Pearce didn’t see the email, while McIntyre, no less, says that Pearce did.

    11) Pearce engages in silence.

    12) The ‘reconciliation’ conference closes with the following ‘achievements’: a) Gavingate, b) Tallbloke and Curry celebrate the spirit of reconciliation and open-mindedness with a appropriate T-shirt, c) not much else.

    *

    Questions:

    1) Is this about right?

    2) If so, is this denialism in action, an incredibly bad Monty Python sketch, or both and business-as-usual as such?

    3) If this is, as claimed by Woods, doing “wonders in helping sceptics”, what happens when ‘sceptics’ REALLY screw things up?

    *

    Supplementary question: can the Luminiferous Aether Theory co-exist with the Iron Sun Theory? Surely the ‘science isn’t settled’ on /this/ matter, either…

  48. #48 GSW
    February 6, 2011

    Thanks Adelady,

    [NOAA ENSO expert: “odds for a two-year (La Niña) event remain well above 50%”](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/04/noaa-enso-expert-odds-for-a-two-year-la-nina-event-remain-well-above-50/)

    I don’t think the post originated from WUWT but is a cut and paste from the NOAA site. The year or two of cooling posited by Barry just struck a cord, wondered if we were talking about the same thing.

  49. #49 MapleLeaf
    February 6, 2011

    It seems that the trolls have an insatiable appetite ;)

    Now back to Pearce misrepresenting Schmidt….has anyone in the UK planning on reporting him and Roger Highfield (Editor of NewScientist, a.k.a PostNormalScientist) to a press council or equivalent? Yes, probably a waste of time, but it still should be done.

  50. #50 jakerman
    February 6, 2011

    Barry Woods and GSW seem strangely intent on lumping in Pearce with every other journalist from the Guardian Environment desk.

    Its a hand-waving and distraction strategy. They can’t defend Pearce so they try and make some other bizzare nonsense the focus.

  51. #51 GSW
    February 6, 2011

    @MapleLeaf @jakerman

    This is Barry’s point I know, but in his absence, are you seriously suggesting;

    “Climate Loonies report new scientist Climate Alarmists for regurgitating email from petulant Climate Modeler”

    If you are going to do something about it, do it, STOP the ineffectual rambling!

  52. #52 jakerman
    February 6, 2011

    GSW, your last post in unintelligible. Interestingly the value of that contribution is on par with much of your posts in this thread.

  53. #53 MapleLeaf
    February 6, 2011

    What is obviously missing here is the input of Pearce and PostNormalScientist (PNS) magazine. Pearce and PNS have both been mum since this story broke. That in itself is unprofessional.Why? Perhaps they are speaking to their lawyers? I know that had this had happened in Canada the complainant would have excellent grounds for suing as Weaver has done.

    I have a strong suspicion that their way of dealing with this matter is going to involve another article by Pearce in which he makes some sort of half arsed apology intermingled with yet more innuendo and misinformation.

  54. #54 MapleLeaf
    February 6, 2011

    Complaint has been sent to PNS….

    Anyone else going to please make the effort?

  55. #55 Holly Stick
    February 6, 2011

    Actually I think I understand GSW to be pushing the meme of “alarmists” attacking each other. Clearly it’s time to get away from the computer for a while.

  56. #56 jakerman
    February 6, 2011

    Maple, yes Pearce is so far allowing tallbloke to give several versions of the the steps leading to Pearce’s misrepresentation. Pearce’s stay quiet strategy does not seem wise given tallblokes contribution. But then again, what is Pearce going to say? He’s misrepresentation is indefensible.

  57. #57 Jeremy C
    February 6, 2011

    >John Mahesy, there haven’t been any studies to my knowledge, however this website has been plagued by sceptical engineers in the past, and the Oregon Petition is stuffed with them. Of course I’m not saying all engineers are deniers, however in my experience a large number of them lean that way often using their engineering credentials as some kind of proof they are scientifically adept.

    A number of people here have commented on how vague the moniker ‘engineer’ is. It is if you are here in the UK where lots of people are called engineers e.g. the guy who comes to repair the heating is always called an engineer and the repair guy won’t even have an HND.

    Now HNDs and HNCs are very good qualifications but they don’t make you an engineer, they are technicians qualifications and technicians think differently from engineers (my own opinion as an engineer is that one of the roles of the engineer is to keep scientists honest). When I did my undergraduate engineering degree back in the 80′s, if I remember correctly Engineering Australia wouldn’t grant Aust graduates with a BSc in engineering full membership, it had to be a B.Eng (you can tell I’m an engineer, I can’t spell, its a prerequisite, like a doctor’s handwriting being illegible).

    However, as an engineer I am worried about the number of denialists who are engineers but I am not puzzled about it. The problem is not so much with engineering as with the way in which people are encouraged to go into engineering. There have been a number of times when I have looked at colleagues and thought they would be much happier as accountants or insurance adjusters rather than being engineers. I just think the wrong sort of people are quite often encouraged to go into engineering, e.g. lacking curiosity.

    I don’t know what tallBoy is on about, its good he has a degree in sci hist and phil and he has done some work to first get an HNC then upgrade that to an HND and I am sure his work at CERN was precision work but it doesn’t sound like to me that he is an engineer and this has all just been a distraction.

    Sorry if this is OT.

  58. #58 Dave H
    February 6, 2011

    @barry woods

    Please can you ensure you always correctly capitalize your name.

    One of your posts got through my killfile plugin, resulting in major brain trauma.

    Regards.

  59. #59 dhogaza
    February 6, 2011

    Sorry if this is OT.

    I don’t think so, the info on common usage in the UK was useful to me, a Yank. We tend to call such people “techs” or “repairmen” here, though in the computer industry, back when they needed near-constant babysitting, we had plenty of “Field Engineers” – techs, but actually, not all that infrequently techs with undergraduate engineering degrees.

    So tallbloke is off the hook with his “qualified engineer”.

    The second sentence of the second paragraph of his “About” page makes me even more doubtful he’s qualified to overturn much of modern science, though …

  60. #60 Ian Forrester
    February 6, 2011

    Did tallbloke’s “quick praisee” include the following?

    Thanks Nasif. I tried to get an invite for you but apparently, because some very high profile people such as the Pielke’s are attending, some of the warmers have decided not to attend and effectively ceded the field. The organisers are trying to find more people from ‘the consensus of 98% of all climate scientists’ but it’s proving to be difficult. Maybe they’re not so confident about defending their science on neutral ground as we are.

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/01/05/flying-to-lisbon-on-official-climate-business/#comment-3645

    Where did he get that sort of information?

    If only deniers would realize that the quickest way for reconciliation is for them to be honest then we could move forward on the next step which is coming up with a solution to the problems being caused by AGW.

  61. #61 dhogaza
    February 6, 2011

    DaveH@159 – post of the day!

  62. #62 Lotharsson
    February 6, 2011

    John Mashey, FWIW, I read “Always the engineers” as sarcastic hyperbole using an idiom that is relatively common (especially in the US), rather than as a precise claim that (say) “ALL X ARE E”.

  63. #63 Rog Tallbloke
    February 6, 2011

    @135 Dhogaza.
    “I don’t know about UK usage, perhaps he can claim to be an “engineer” in the same sense that in the US a train locomotive driver is an “engineer”.”

    Doesn’t this qualify me to talk crap about climate as well as Rajendra Pachauri?

  64. #64 dhogaza
    February 6, 2011

    Ian Forrester:

    Where did he get that sort of information?

    Apparently, he was one of the people asked to help with the invite list. So it would make sense that they’d come back and say, “hey, we’re getting turned down, any more ideas?”

  65. #65 guthrie
    February 6, 2011

    Mapleleaf #151 – making a complaint to the useless PPC is as you say a waste of time. there’s no point in making one unless you are Gavin, which you aren’t. They operate a typical regulatory capture scenario, in which anyone not the person directly involved has no standing. You would be better writing to Pearce and New scientist.

  66. #66 Jeremy C
    February 6, 2011

    >Doesn’t this qualify me to talk crap about climate as well as Rajendra Pachauri?

    Does anyone else find this sentence as funny as I do?

  67. #67 Rog Tallbloke
    February 6, 2011

    @158 JeremyC.
    “its good he has a degree in sci hist and phil and he has done some work to first get an HNC then upgrade that to an HND and I am sure his work at CERN was precision work but it doesn’t sound like to me that he is an engineer”

    That’s right Jeremy, I’m just a dirty handed mechanic.
    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/image_117.jpg

    Still a better Engineer than most BSc’s though, because I understand materials and turbulent flows and measurement in the real world beyond the textbook and computer intimately and thoroughly.

  68. #68 GSW
    February 6, 2011

    @All following the “Why are Engineers Sceptics Meme”

    Speculation on my part: I understand that today Science undergraduates are instructed in [Critical Thinking](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking), in my day this was the focal part of every lab exercise. For Engineers it is an implicit day to day methodology for operating effectively – Hence the apparent high percentage of Engineers sceptical of Climate ‘Science’.

    For those of you without Science degrees (or seemingly any critical faculty whatsoever) you could liken it to a highly sensitive BS detector.

  69. #69 eadler
    February 6, 2011

    I am scratching my head. Has Tallbloke misspelled precis as praisee?

  70. #70 dhogaza
    February 6, 2011

    I am scratching my head. Has Tallbloke misspelled precis as praisee?

    eadler, yes.

    In a similar vein, checkout the raison date linked to in the post I’ve just linked to (above, #68)

  71. #71 Chris O'Neill
    February 6, 2011

    Tallbloke:

    Doesn’t this qualify me to talk crap about climate as well as Rajendra Pachauri?

    I wasn’t aware Pachuri was a train locomotive driver. We learn something every day from Tallbloke.

  72. #72 Rog Tallbloke
    February 6, 2011

    @172. Not sure I can teach you how to get a sense of humour.

    @169 GSW. Spot on brother!

  73. #73 Holly Stick
    February 6, 2011

    Especially after checking out [Pachauri's education and career:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri#Background)

  74. #74 GSW
    February 6, 2011

    @Tallbloke #173

    Not a prob. ;)

  75. #75 Jeremy C
    February 6, 2011

    Yup GSW,

    >For those of you without Science degrees (or seemingly any critical faculty whatsoever) you could liken it to a highly sensitive BS detector.

    And as an engineer my highly sensitive BS detector has for years rung loud and clear whenever a denialist steps into the building.

    Tallbloke,
    I see you didn’t read my post but there is a type or personality amongst technicians who are snippy at not being called engineers and then there are the type of technicians such as the one I had on my first project out of university, who was proud to call himself a ‘techie’ and who had the patience with-me-wet-behind-the-ears to sit me down one day on packing crates at Andrews Antennas in Melbourne and to draw out for me on a piece of paper how a TWTA worked so that I understood it.

    Just don’t try to pass yourself off as an engineer, instead be proud of being a technician

  76. #76 jakerman
    February 6, 2011

    Tallbloke keeps ignoring [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3217791), to instead side with GSW’s drivel.

    GSW writes:

    >*@All following the “Why are Engineers Sceptics Meme”*

    Then goes on to ignore the point that that its a meme. Typical denialist logic failure. Lets see your data on what proportion of Engineers are so called “skeptics”?

    For the portion who are deniers, a simple hypothesis exists, a significant proportion of Engineers jobs, carers (and that extent identity) have been based on extraction and burning of fossil fuels.

  77. #77 jakerman
    February 6, 2011

    >*And as an engineer my highly sensitive BS detector has for years rung loud and clear whenever a denialist steps into the building.*

    Jeremy, FWIW from the small sample in this thread who have outed themselves as engineers, you can add Lotharsson, John Mashey and I a Engineers with similar BS detection skills.

  78. #78 Jeremy C
    February 6, 2011

    And we share the same ability in spelling, not. Well, perhaps not John Mashey b’cause if his spelling was bad the deniers would scream about taht all over the place with his reports.

  79. #79 jakerman
    February 6, 2011

    Don’t be so hard on yourself Jez, spelling as bad as mine is rare indeed.

  80. #80 J Bowers
    February 6, 2011

    167 – “Doesn’t this qualify me to talk crap about climate as well as Rajendra Pachauri?”

    No. You don’t have two PhD’s in fields that would probably make you eligible to be an author on AR5 WG2. You’re overreaching, ill informed, and demonstrating why those who chose you for a conference on resolving issues in the climate debate were doomed to fail from the start. Experiment? Yes. Full-arsed? No.

  81. #81 GSW
    February 6, 2011

    @JBowers

    Agreed. One Rajendra Pachauri talking crap is more then enough ;)

  82. #82 jakerman
    February 6, 2011

    That last comment exposes GSW lack of argument and lack of honesty further.

  83. #83 dhogaza
    February 6, 2011

    Tallbloke’s only qualified to talk crap, that’s established.

  84. #84 pough
    February 6, 2011

    Hence the apparent high percentage of Engineers sceptical of Climate ‘Science’.

    And Evolution; don’t forget all those Engineers who are skeptical of Evolution. After all, it was the “biggest hoax ever perpetrated on humanity” long before AGW was and much like AGW its demise has been ever-imminent.

  85. #85 GSW
    February 6, 2011

    @pough

    Are they? I didn’t know that. Let’s find out…Hands up all the Egineers here sceptical of evolution?

  86. #86 luminous beauty
    February 6, 2011

    Roger, quick, raise your hand! Your ally is in need of some confirmation.

  87. #87 GSW
    February 6, 2011

    @luminous
    ;)

  88. #88 Jeremy C
    February 6, 2011

    Sorry Pough,

    Can’t let that go by. I’m not sceptical of evolution, I don’t know why engineers might be sceptical of evolution, oh…..and……I’m a christian from the evangelical protestant tradition and many people (not from any christian tradition) tell me that because I’m a christian I am supposed to be sceptical of evolution….. but I just put that down to ignorance on their part.

    Oh, and there is nothing in the bible that tells me I have to be polite to deniers, look at the language Jesus, John the bap and Paulie of Tarsus used about similar types, burns your ears off it does!

  89. #89 jakerman
    February 6, 2011

    There Jeremy is a sample size of one, that should be enough data for GSW to create a meme about the whole population of Engineers (which was how I read pough’s point Jez).

  90. #90 jakerman
    February 6, 2011

    Or to state’s pough’s point another way, GSW may as well be making up reasons to explain why so many engineers are denialst as for why so many engineers reject evolution. As neither memes are based on sufficient data.

    Here is question to emphasis the point: GSW, do you think that more engineers reject the theory of evolution than do scientist?

  91. #91 GSW
    February 6, 2011

    @Jeremy C

    That’s ok, I believe one’s own personal religious belief is a complex issue, with an obligation to family, community and others, resolve it as best you can.

    Whether AGW is true or not has no relevance to this. ;)

  92. #92 frankis
    February 6, 2011

    Here’s a fun piece on the [problem with engineers](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Engineers_and_woo)

    John Mashey, please read the 3rd paragraph of it (“This does not mean that engineers are likely … “)! [my italics]

  93. #93 GSW
    February 6, 2011

    @191

    This was in response to an earlier post, I think the poster was having a go at people without degrees saying, “why is it always the engineers?” implying a higher proportion of Engineers are Sceptics. I have no data on this, but suggested a possible reason.

    Ask the original poster? if I were you.

  94. #94 GSW
    February 6, 2011

    @193

    If you are going to link to something, actually link to something worthwhile. Garbage In Garbage Out.

  95. #95 jakerman
    February 6, 2011

    frankis, very interesting, thanks for the data.

  96. #96 Jeremy C
    February 6, 2011

    Good point Jakerman,

    My mistake in not getting your comment Pough………And looky is GSW trying to be as deft as Pough……if so he don’t get it.

    Frankis,

    That was funny….Y’Ouch!

    But, hey, I strongly object to engineers being described as politically conservative, I have never voted conservative and think that Abbott is more dangerous than Howard ever was (and he’s deranged as well) and can point to lots of engineers who wouldn’t vote conservative (e.g. Jimmy Carter and the Australian playwright David Williamson). But yeah, sometimes we can be real berks, hence my self serving point earlier that a lot of the wrong sort of people get pushed into engineering and then you get people like Tallbloke trying to pass himself off as an engineer – hmmm, perhaps that adds to the thesis of the author of “Engineers and Woo”.

  97. #97 jakerman
    February 6, 2011

    >*I have no data on this, but suggested a possible reason.*

    Perhaps you could also suggest a possible reason for why “Many prominent figures in the creationism movement are or have been engineers”?

    Or why *”data gathered in 1984 found 46% of male American engineers describing themselves as both conservative and religious, compared with 22% of scientists.”*

  98. #98 GSW
    February 6, 2011

    @196 197

    Garbage In Garbage Out. ;)

  99. #99 Jeremy C
    February 6, 2011

    @195

    Ah Frankis,

    Dare it looks like you may have touched a nerve there with your link.

    Off course being an engineer I never pontificate on any thing till I’ve thoroughly researched the back of the cornflake packet and then I hand it back to Andrew Bolt or James Delingpole to use.

  100. #100 Jeremy C
    February 6, 2011

    >Perhaps you could also suggest a possible reason for why “Many prominent figures in the creationism movement are or have been engineers”?

    Could it be us engineers are more genetically susceptiple to that terrible affliction, *Emeritus Syndrome, than scientists are? An affliction that denialists have so cruelly exploited.