Odds are you have a very fast Intel microprocessor in your computer. One of the main reasons Intel processors are so fast is because they have a very fast bus, called the QPI bus – which handles all the communication between the CPU and the rest of the system.
I was on the original QPI design team at Intel in Fort Collins, CO. My job was to flush out every last bug in the design of the QPI bus. I couldn’t afford to put up with egos or incompetence, and filed hundreds of bugs against designers. They all got fixed and the QPI bus is now what gives Intel their competitive advantage in the marketplace.
When academic climate hacks attack me with their their elementary school failing mathematics and anti-science superstitions, it makes me laugh even harder. They know they would get destroyed in a debate with me, and that is why they won’t do it. These intellectual midgets are not in the same league with me.
I was rewarded for finding bugs in industry. Academic peer-review is the exact opposite. Academics are rewarded for scratching each other on the back, and not finding bugs.
Climate science is a farce. These people have no idea what they are doing. If they were engineers, nothing would work.
Thank you for doing what you do!
I agree
Amen!
Reason, rationality and science rule!
On the shoulders of unsung heroes, everyday masters of science and engineering, like Tony Heller, our culture has achieved unprecedented improvements in quality of life for every American citizen.
Our opponents are champions of emotional and superstitious groveling to mysterious natural forces they do not understand. Their willing rejection of reason, in favor of hysterical fear opens our culture to dark and evil forces–history shows where such beliefs lead.
Never before in modern history has a culture turned on itself to willingly commit cultural suicide.
Victory over the forces of dark superstition and anti-humanity is not assured.
Thanks for all you do, Tony. Don’t give up!
Thanks Kent!
Nicely done Kent.
Ditto
“Climate science is a farce.”
I actually know some climatologist, and it’s not that simple, and certainly not all of them are on board with the predictions of doom, nor do they like the changes to data, data collection and how things are going with current “consensus science”. Let’s not tar everyone with the same brush.
The only scientist I have talked to who seems to understand the climate is Bill Gray, and he isn’t a climate scientist
The few I know would not say anything in public due to a well founded fear of consequences. Which is ironic, because one of them also was afraid to say anything about climate change while under George W,
There was a definite sense of bad consequences for talking about warming under his rules. Now it’s the other way around.
Correct me if i’m wrong but didn’t George W convert ‘Global Warming’ speak to ‘Climate Change’ gabble, around 2004, after she’d stopped ‘warming’…?
“Correct me if i’m wrong but didn’t George W convert ‘Global Warming’ speak to ‘Climate Change’ ”
It’s more complicated than that. George W couldn’t actually force scientist to change the terms they use. The media and other idiots, different story.
I believe you are wrong.
http://pmm.nasa.gov/education/articles/whats-name-global-warming-vs-climate-change
sfx2020,
IMO, the whole CC scientific farce is articulated by the name change from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’, whereby the climate always changes therefore the latter term is always immune to contradictory facts and data.
On George W ~ even he was, perhaps by the ballot box, forced to acknowledge the environmental scam: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070514-2.html
There in lies the BIG problem….environmentalism is fashionable, however the ‘science’ contradicts mother nature.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed in 1988.
That is the same year then-Senator Tim Wirth scheduled Hansen’s presentation before Congress.
Some may remember, Wirth admitted (with a smile on his face) in a PBS interview that he purposefully scheduled the hearing for the historically hottest day of the year in D.C., and opened the windows the night before – to overload the A/C system, so it would be uncomfortably warm in the hearing room the next day.
Wirth went on to become President and Board member of the United Nations Foundation.
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
But the term “climate change” was used even before that, in discussions about global cooling.
I would respond to your comments the same way I respond to people who say that, because only a majority of academic feminists are sour mediocrities who sell boneheaded ideas to unsuspecting female undergraduates, we can’t say that academic feminists in general are sour mediocrities who sell boneheaded ideas to unsuspecting female undergraduates. But if the minority of feminists in academia who AREN’T sour mediocrities are too cowardly to speak up and rebuke those in the majority, then in practical terms they are just as bad as those in the majority. Wasn’t it the famous moral philosopher Janis Ian in “Mean Girls” who said, “There are those who commit evil acts, and those who allow evil acts to be committed”?
SFX,
Can you provide a reference to a public statement of those “climatologists…not on board with the predictions of doom?”
The fact is that when actual scientists, engineers, climatologists, and other rational thinkers speak the truth (to power!) about the non-apocalyptic-climate, they are demonized, denigrated, attacked, and destroyed.
So, yes, there are surely some who speak up, but as of now, it is very much “us vs. them.”
Realists on the side of helping humanity achieve productive, healthy, comfortable lives on one side. On the other side are the dark forces of destruction, devolution, extermination, and genocide. Speaking up for reason, against the destructive “consensus” is quite dangerous–for any academic, industry, or government scientist.
It would be good to hear about the climatologists you know who are on the good side. Thanks for sharing!
“Can you provide a reference to a public statement of those “climatologists…not on board with the predictions of doom?”
No, and they will not speak out under the current situation. There are consequences, and they are well aware of it. In personal conversations, we discuss it a lot.
Unfortunately, nuclear engineers and scientists bought the “bull shit” nuclear binding energy equation of Dr. Carl von Weizsacker after WWII.
His equation yields deceptively high values of nuclear binding energy for neutron-rich nuclei and deceptively low values of nuclear binding energy for proton-rich nuclei.
It thus kept scientists and engineers from recognizing neutron repulsion.
1. Values of Aston’s “nuclear packing fraction” indicate nuclear stability.
2. Values of Weizsacker’s “nuclear binding energy” do NOT indicate nuclear stability
There is competition in many academic science fields, particularly related to engineering, which is consistent with your point. In chemistry for example, there is competition to derive the composition and structure of natural molecules and to be the first to synthesize them or to synthesize them with fewer steps, greater yield, etc. Competition drives progress, advantage and reward in these areas. Climate science is driven by a government narrative. There’s not much room for competition, as least not yet.
Chemistry has had a few of scientists controlling the “group think.” It usually fails to hold because someone can go into the lab and uncover the flaw. Climate “science” seems to be fairly immune to noticing data that don’t follow the theory. Who will remember if their predictions for 2100 didn’t pan out?
Mythbusting: Engineers are more in touch with reality. Oh yeah? Explain this to me.
When you operate your bathroom tap, you turn it anti-clockwise if you want more, clockwise if you want less.
When you operate the volume control on your stereo (a later technology than a tap), you turn it clockwise if you want more and anti-clockwise if you want less.
When you use a calculator (the earlier technology) the buttons are arranged with the highest numbers at the top.
When you use a phone, the buttons are arranged with the highest numbers at the bottom.
Who do we thank for this illogical confusion that affects us every single day of our lives? Engineers.
1) these things were designed by different people.
2) Industrial designers usually make such decisions.
3) People like different conventions for different things. I’ve personally made things function according to the existing convention even though the existing convention was nonsensical when considering things outside of its own tiny universe.
Why do Brits drive on the Left?
Driving on the left is sensible for 80% of humans (those who are right handed). In the days of horses combat was right hand to right hand. Driving on the left achieves that.
In Scotland left handers are known as Corrie-Fisted or Corrie-Handed, after the Kerr family who were heredity left-handers. According to legend spiral stairs in their castle were the “other way” round in order to aid those who held swords in their left hand. Right handed servants and men at arms were taught to fight left handed, probably unique in the western world?
Also interesting, that most of North America drove on the left side before Independence and most of Europe drove on the left side up until the Napoleonic Wars. It was all about a change of Governance & new rules ; nothing to do with any practical gains whatsoever !
Of course horses and motorcycles are more often dismounted on the left side next to the foot path / side walk, where it’s safer, away from traffic ( not so if you drive on the right ).
oldfossil says: “When you operate your bathroom tap, you turn it anti-clockwise if you want more, clockwise if you want less.”
Yes. That’s the natural result of using a standard right-hand screw thread stopping down on the valve. I suspect it has to do with the most common dominant hand, right hand, and its stronger turning direction. Very good engineering indeed.
“When you operate the volume control on your stereo (a later technology than a tap), you turn it clockwise if you want more and anti-clockwise if you want less.”
Yes. You are free to rewire the potentiometer to go the other way if you wish.
I suspect the earliest such indicator is a sun dial which in the northern hemisphere its shadow proceeds clockwise to indicate advancing time. Clocks thus proceed in the same direction indicating more time, so more of anything is usually clockwise.
“When you use a calculator (the earlier technology) the buttons are arranged with the highest numbers at the top.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “earlier technology” since that could be anything from yesterday to Charles Baggage’s era. The Marchant mechanical calculators stood upright and it makes sense for higher numbers to by physically higher.
“When you use a phone, the buttons are arranged with the highest numbers at the bottom.”
So it seems. Before that it was a rotary dial, turning clockwise.
What a relief to discuss something besides methane for a day!
Now you have me looking at the two sets of numbered keys on my keyboard. LOL
One of the initial push button phone displays was at the Seattle Worlds Fair 1962. At the demonstration, just because so many people had access and use of the ‘Adding Machine’ keyboard layout, many times the dialer mechanism could not keep up (this was before the ‘tone’ dialer. The keyboards phone to adding machine switch top to bottom was to prevent this from happening.
I remember writing a BASIC payroll program back in the very early 80’s running on the first IBM PC’s. It was fine for the people in my department and they told a few others how much easier it made payroll since it also did error checking and kept a database. Another department asked if I could rewrite it for them (all the accounts were hard coded.) The girls working crunched numbers all day long and they were all 10 key proficient. They immediately found the limit to the PC’s keyboard buffer and run time compiled code causing me to learn how to use the original IBM BASIC compiler… sans any instruction whatsoever. Those ladies could enter data at a truly impressive rate and I’m sure they could have overdriven a click and bang switching system with ease.
“I remember writing a BASIC payroll program back in the very early 80’s”
I wrote an inventory program in WANG BASIC in 1980 or so; it was a work of art and beauty. It also crashed in about 10 minutes of actual use because it never occurred to me that anyone would type an “O” (oh) for a “0” (Zero) (*). Ever since then my input validation routines are robust and sometimes half the entire coding of a small utility program. Absolutely nothing goes direct from user input to database.
* In those days, IBM Selectric typewriters were extremely common and didn’t include 1’s or 0’s; you typed a lower case “L” for the 1 and an Oh for the Zero.
The current crop of climate scientists are just our generations version of the establishment science clowns from previous years who claimed the earth was flat and the sun went around our lovely flat planet.
The Pause must just scare the crap out of them, make them wonder if they can ride out they scam
One enough to collect their government pensions. Because then they are golden, untouchable and can just ignore how wrong the were.
Big thanks to Tony for exposing them. You know you are right because not only will they not debate you, they won’t sue you. Because they know what Discovery would do their bogus claims and vapid reputations.
I try to teach people that products of scientists do not go through the processes, debugging, testing and quality control of the products of engineers. That the products of science are dangerous because of it. But people are well conditioned to the religion of science and then suddenly I am ‘anti-science’. No, I am not anti-science, I am anti-bad products. It’s amusing the rate of serious safety issues and manufacturing defects that are permitted in scientific products. The lack of FMEA so many unintended consequences go unexplored. People would throw a fit if their cars or computers or any other engineering based product came out this way.
Science is fine. But peer review shouldn’t be the mechanism of setting political policy or putting products on the market. It simply isn’t up to the task but instead the biggest risks to civilization are handled this way. It’s absurd. Roll the dice and hope for the best.
“…. products of scientists do not go through the processes, debugging, testing and quality control of the products of engineers….”
That is only recently since Post-Modern Science reared its ugly head. As chemists we always figured it took three independent labs getting the same results before something new was considered valid. That is why older scientists were throwing fits over the statement:
“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. “
WTF!?! No TRUE scientist would ever ever say that. A real scientist would welcome someone else varifying their work. That statement alone tells you ClimAstrologists ARE NOT SCIENTISTS! The fact that it is ten years later and this farce is still going strong tells you it is ALL politics and no science.
http://climateaudit.org/2005/10/15/we-have-25-years-invested-in-this-work/
And yes I am a chemist. I worked in industry where we faced the same reality as engineers do. It either works or it doesn’t. Writing papers about how many devils will dance on the head of a pin doesn’t cut it in industry. Therefore the division is along practical vs academic rather than engineers vs scientists. (I am not incloding the ‘soft’ sciences)
IME scientists argue politically and then fall back on their degrees and credentials. They accuse those that don’t agree with them of being ‘flat-earthers’ and the like. The reason IMO is simply that most science these days is government funded or in crony capitalist industries.
The peer review process is very much a political process of approval. It has very little to do with actual results and facts. That’s the engineers vs. scientists part, they put products out on the basis of peer review and government approval. It’s politics.
Engineers have liability. If someone cuts their foot off they can’t say, it’s 1/1,000,000, sucks to be you. If it was a known failure mode or even a foreseeable failure mode the company is going to be sued for million and probably successfully. Scientists just say ‘sucks to be you’ and move on. People are just livestock when viewed from the ivory tower. If 400 lives are saved and 300 die then it’s a go. If you’re one of the 300 but would have lived otherwise, well sucks to be you.
As I said I worked in industry.
The R&D chemists came up with the new products, the analytical chemists came up with the new test methods, The QC types made sure the raw materials/products met spec. As a Q.C. chemist, I generally sheparded my products through the pilot plant stage, consulted with the Chem Eng. and did all the troubleshooting once a new product hit the plant floor. No way did I or the other chemists or chem engineers get off the hook if there were problems with the product. If the problem was bad enough the VP would haul us all in to a conference room. Some how I was always the one stuck with solving the problem probably because I was darn good at it.
I’m a civil engineer whose primary focus is structural engineering.
Officially of course, “Big Civil Engineering” is pro-Settled-Science concerning “climate change” because civil engineering is dominated by public works projects paid for from the public purse, and “let’s fix climate change” = “let’s spend tax dollars,” which is music to the ears of “Beltway Bandits” who infest lobbying at the Federal, state and local levels.
However, if you talk to actual civil engineers whose focus is not on securing lucrative government contracts but on working for a living – particularly in the private sector – you rarely find one who puts any stock in “climate change.”
They know that designs for handling storm water for example aren’t having to change because of “more storms” or “dryer summers” or whatever the flavor-of-the-month for “man-caused climate change” happens to be.
Logic dictates skepticism. The alarmists are motivated by one thing: money from the public coffers which dwarfs all the assets of “big oil” by an order of magnitude.
I have a good friend who is a very storm water engineer, and he has a very low opinion of climate alarmists and government in general.
Steve,
As a test engineer in Intel customers the experience of bugs is slightly different. bugs were never admitted; but were referred to as features. Some features cost quite a lot of money to overcome.
The 8251A USART was particularly feature rich as I remember it.
4195835.0/3145727.0 – the test for the Intel Pentium floating point divide ‘feature’.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
NB, “Academic peer-review is the exact opposite. Academics are rewarded for scratching each other on the back, and not finding bugs.
Climate science is a farce. These people have no idea what they are doing. If they were engineers, nothing would work.”
Peer review in the climate mafia…
http://pmm.nasa.gov/education/articles/whats-name-global-warming-vs-climate-change
https://dukeprimate.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/img_1047.jpg
That’s better.
NASA is listed as the author of the article
Author: NASA
My engineering qualification is in Mechatronics, control and automation. One of the things which convinced me that CO2 was not a problem was the idea that the climate could be reliably modeled. Having used some of the best modelling and simulation programs and looked at all the input variables which need to be broken down into a single formula, it’s clear to me that we don’t quite have the required technology to do a reliable prediction of climate…not unless you can predict solar activity and the equally variable cosmic wind speeds.
Anyway…..what is a climatologist, I mean what do you have to do to qualify as one ? 25 years ago they didn’t exist did they ?
Intrinsically, all you have to do to qualify as a 0-25 year old govt climatologist is refuse to go beyond 25 years of climate history, because climate history destroys the narrative.
Let’s see if I understand this. Corrections are welcome.
So called “consensus climate science” says a potential two degree rise in temperature over this century is an emergency that requires deconstructing Western civilization to reduce CO2 emissions. Allied political “science” says we should allow Eastern civilization to increase CO2 emissions beyond what reductions could be achieved by erasing western civilization. Paleo-climatology and geology refer to a period of temperature in the early Holocene, similar to the current alleged potential emergency, as a “climactic optimum”. Yet, despite at least sixteen years of NO significant temperature rise, we are asked to surrender the technological progress of four centuries to forestall a progression toward a climactic optimum that is not happening, whilst allowing the East to add more than our current level of emissions to theirs. .
Ain’t politics wonderful?
I would like to point out that it is not just Climate science that is in a muddle with “manipulating” data to prove a thesis. The big difference with Climate science is that Politian’s are involved and we as individuals are paying the price of political folly; a very large price, and many of us care about this. I would suggest that cosmology and physics are in an even bigger hole, but most people just ignore this as they believe it doesn’t directly effect them. Well let me tell you that most people are mistaken in this belief because it is the misdirection and wilful ignoring of evidence that has sent all of science down blind alleys for a century now, lead by cosmology and physics that cling onto theories such as Newtonian gravity just to name one, that they have failed to explain and spent billions on exotic experiments trying to prove what they believe rather than believing what all the data that is being gathered by our every improving technology. Many other branches of science take their lead from Physics.
So Tony as an engineer myself I believe in what you say, but there is a far wider problem with science, and perhaps if we had a better example set by the Cosmologists and Physicists, climate science would never have got away with what it has.
Also in engineering you cannot work in a vacuum, you have to be multidisciplinary, and not just blindly accept what an expert from another engineering discipline tells you. This sort of rigor is missing completely from academia.
That is why I want to see ALL of academia DEFUNDED!
I agree, Peter, “if we had a better example set by the Cosmologists and Physicists, climate science would never have got away with what it has.”
After WWII, nuclear and solar physics were “adjusted” to prevent public knowledge of the energy that destroyed Hiroshima – Neutron repulsion in cores of heavy atoms and stars: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy_For_Review.pdf
There is no such thing as climate science. There is only climate history, a branch of geology.
There’s been a $100,000 debate challenge to Algore the Apostle of Doom that he refuses to take that’s been up for years now. They know they’ll get destroyed in an open debate.
As living proof, they’re running gooberment and NOTHING WORKS… CASE CLOSED!
Engineers create something of value for a dollar that other persons promise for ten dollars.
The other staple is that engineers are RESPONSIBLE for what we do. If I screw up a design, it’s on my head. I can’t blame a mystery force in the universe or a trace gas with contradictory super powers. I do my due diligence and take responsibility for my mistakes and when the system works as designed, the kudos go to the PM, installation techs, programmers, commissioning engineers, shipping clerks and everyone else who have to do their jobs right. And those jobs are dependent on me getting it right the first time. My only out is a manufacturer giving me the wrong specification or a sales guy substituting gear… and I STILL bear the responsibility to make it all work. Therefore I double check all manufacturer’s specifications with reality (and adjust accordingly) and make sure ALL of my equipment recommendations are written down and sent to the right folks ’cause I know I’ll still have to make the job work with the wrong gear or less money while pleading for time and money to test the “less than optimal” designs. And the client is the final judge, a consensus of other engineers that the system should work doesn’t count… if the client ain’t happy with it, the buck stops with me.
Engineers are accountable.
Engineers are accountable.
Indeed. And that is what makes engineers so dangerous to climatology.
Crusty, logical thinkers who accept nothing at face value are anathema to the so-called climatologists and their “science”.
Engineers laugh at climatologists and their computer-generated fantasy climate models. And rightly so, given the demonstrated accuracy of those fantasy models.
Fortunately, the so-called climatologists made such a big deal of those fantasy models that they cannot back down from them now. Kinda hard to say the very foundation of climatology (those computer-generated fantasy climate models) need complete alteration now.
When an engineering student was reviewing the plans for Citicorp Center in NY, they noticed a failure mode that the design engineers hadn’t considered if the wind was coming from a certain angle. If this were climate science, that student
-wouldn’t even be alloweed to see the plans (why should I show you them if you just want to find something wrong with them)
-would have faced severe discrimination in her career if she did manage to find the plans and discover the error in them
There is also the chance that the error would have remained undiscovered, and a hurricane like Sandy would have been strong enough to blow it down.
http://www.onlineethics.org/Topics/ProfPractice/Exemplars/BehavingWell/lemesindex/DianeHartley.aspx
Engineers don’t brook fools and idiots. (Except environmental engineering. That’s the branch most susceptible to enviropandering.)
I think engineering is the last bastion of honesty in our modern society, and even then we’re frequently overruled by MBAs who are seem more inclined toward wishful thinking than any sort of real world based judgment. The Challenger disaster is one of the more spectacular examples of that dynamic.
I’ve been digging into cosmology and theoretical physics, and it’s making me gag. I don’t know enough to judge one way or the other on Oliver Manuel’s frequent comments, but it’s pretty obvious that there isn’t much good science going on any more.
Pops There is plenty of good science going on, and plenty of excellent comment. The problem is much of the money dished out by Government is misdirected. The Large Hadron Collider is a classic example of ultimate waste. If only a small fraction of the money went into alternatives we would start making progress again. Most politician’s and far too greater proportion of the public mistake technology for scientific understanding. They are not one and the same.
Well said. Don’t stop what you’re doing. Their reaction and smear campaigns is a sure sign you’re pushing the right buttons.