I don't understand engineering. Should I consider it a religion and disregard anything about it I don't like?

Question

I have a couple of science degrees, but I'm not good at maths and physics was way over my head. I have looked at some engineering material and it is just beyond my understanding. I have also seen some engineers making rookie mistakes in their assessments of climate science, which they clearly do not understand. However despite this lack of understanding, they seem to deny the science outright.

Here's a specific example- John Kerr is an engineer and obviously very intelligent. He has very solid understanding of things like thermodynamics. But he completely ignores climate feedback effects in his calculations of the influence of CO2 on the earth's temperature (remove spaces: http:/ /tinyurl .com/ 8gom 9ag) and in estimating future warming (http:/ /tinyurl .com/ 9qy7 l45).

Given the behaviour of some of the engineers who speak out against climate science, I think the logical thing for me to do is start a blog discussing why engineering is unscientific based on my understanding of biology. I'm sure in time I will also find evidence of mistakes in published material, and possibly also corruption if I spend enough time reading through wikileaks. This should confirm that engineering is not science, it is religion.

In the meantime, should I just consider it religion anyway? I have pretty much already made up my mind that it is, so will it hurt anyone if I just run with it?

Most importantly, are there government agencies or projects supporting engineering? If so, HOW MUCH OF OUR TAXES GOES TOWARDS FUNDING THEM?

Answer 1

Engineering is not religion, and it would be an insult to religion to describe as "religious" arrogant half-competent engineers who lie herd-like about climate science they don't understand, but you could say that many of such crackpot flaming hypocrites are irrational and cult-like.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney

... .... .... ....

Answer 2

Religion is a denier theme one they try to pretend applies to 'alarmists' while it is deniers who keep using the practices of a religion.

The we have the pretend geologist (now pretend geo engineer) oh dear he does like saying we 'alarmists' hate science, while at the same time demonstrating he has no real understanding of science. Hence the reference to



"Talk about a straw man argument. AGW is a theory. Only the misinformed think that it equates to science."



Only someone with no science training at all would make such an absurd statement, anyone with even high school science skills should be able to see the corner jimbo has once again painted himself into, with this nonsensical statement.

The point of any scientific theory is that it is a work in progress one example is the theory of gravity, originally put forward by Newton 4 centuries ago it has evolved and changed and is now part of the general relativity as one of the fundamental forces along with electromagnetism and nuclear forces.

Did this prove Newton wrong, no if you step of a cliff gravity will still kill you, or for our pedantic denier friends who try to pick every small point it is actually the deceleration well you reach the bottom that kills you.

Within science there are many theories all are based on science and the best data we have at the moment, but data and the methods of obtaining it are always improving, a real 'scientist'/geologist/geo engineer (what ever you are today) would know that jim, a real geologist would not be peddling denier rot like "it's only a theory" If you ever see a real geologist try asking him or her.

There is a reason deniers try so desperately to attack any and all climate change data, it's because they have no answer for the now massive amount of data from multiple fields of science (including geology jim).

It temperature data, sea level data, Co2 data, sea ice data, glacial ice data, ocean acidity data. Coming from a range of scientific fields, no denier will address this point as they know it shoot down their rubbish that this is all just Hansen & Mann and a couple of others, when the published work is from thousands of scientists over many decades, this is all the answer really needed to the fiction that scientists are being bribed or are part of some conspiracy.



jim keeps the claims pretty vague, as nailing him down to what science he thinks supports his claims leads to places were he gets very confused, this is the same guy who not so long ago tried to claim that the theory of oil being produced deep in the Earth was a popular one with geologists, which is quite simple not true, the theory is an obscure one created by a Russian and has little real support in the geology community, the theory that oil originates from biologic material is the one the bulk of the geology community go with it is also the one supported by the evidence and the facts oil and coal and gas and even peat are various levels in the same process with varying degrees of pressure and time giving different results.



Lets see jim dispute this group who support the plant theory and not jims absurd theory

http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/what-is-coal/

perhaps jim would like to call them greenies, if that makes him feel better, that should be worth a laugh.

Answer 3

You have a couple of science degrees and you don't understand maths and physics !!!!!



No wonder the country is in so much trouble '



Any way all previous estimates about the effect of Co2 on the climate have been wrong so that binging the case how can any Intelligent person take any notice of future estimates .



so here is some Research for you from qualified scientists .

Answer 4

Only a deeply religious person could possibly think in such deluded terms.

A religion is faith based - you believe without evidence.

Now I might think an arch or suspension bridge impossible and doubt people who believed in them, but an engineer could take me to a bridge and show me proof. Can a climate 'scientist' take me to some co2 and let me witness the carnage ? Hmm thought not.

Answer 5

Only a wise man would consider anything he does not understand to be a religion... NOT.



Engineers are funded by those mean rotten corporations that greenies and leftist hate. Engineers are not snowed by junk science. Engineers know how to cut thru the crap that "scientists" often toss into the mix. They do it on a regular basis in industry.

Answer 6

Well, if the Civil Engineering norm was to build a building and then say "This building should last 1000 years" and then it fell down the next day and they did absolutely nothing to determine the cause of why their prediction was wrong then yes, I would say they were abandoning science and turning into it religion. When you don't question things skeptically and just rely on faith, like alarmist do, then CAGW is no better than a religion.

Answer 7

OMG What have u been smoking. Try ur question in a more appropriate category. JC.

http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/index;_ylt=Ag5FspPK3reK6HaLwK4JU5XEDH1G;_ylv=3?sid=396545219

Answer 8

Your question is a very good description of the sort of thinking that denialists do when they describe AGW as a religion.



Phoenix Quill







Unless you know your audience understands what you are talking about, and that you and they actually understand Marxist philosophy, you shouldn't be supprised that they should think that "Marxist" is an insult



Karl Marx was a man who was disturbed by the suffering of the lower class in Victorian England. In that way, Marx was in good company. Moses, Siddhartha Gautama, Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi and Marx' contemporary, Charles Dickens were also moved by the suffering of the poor. Marx also said that the lower class should overthrow their oppressors. Where else have were heard such thinking?



" it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." (The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776)

http://www.history.com/topics/read-the-declaration-of-independence







Climatolgists, such as James Hansen, know that too. The opinion of a billion morons or geniuses can't change that global warming is happening

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/images/warmingindicators.jpg

or that we are causing it

http://planetsave.com/2010/08/18/humans-cause-global-warming-10-indicators/



Or that the ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2004 and 2011.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/



OM



Engineers built the infrastructure to allowed you to post your nonsense "answer" for the entire world to read.



Pindar







I know of a fourth grader who can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0kIaCKPlH4

Answer 9

definite, we Christians knew all of it alongside your ideals are a faith to you. You instruct our ingredient. And definite you may take gay marriage for your self. In a Christian marriage the couple could desire to stand in the previous God and promise to love and honour one yet another until loss of existence do us section.

Answer 10

Bill Maher has done so many Americans a profound disservice by making them think that a stupid zinger question is a valid reason to believe or disbelieve something.

Answer 11

Yes, and as evidence of your ignorance we will point out how you must not believe in gravity, think that the earth is only 5 thousand years old, that you think the earth is flat, and believe the building of levees isn't a viable solution for flood control, and Hurricane Katrina is proof that engineering is a hoax.

Answer 12

LOL JimZ: AGW is 'just a theory' and only those misinformed people believe that it is an actual science? Lately you've been taking more and more of a young Earth creationist style of argument in here. Some of your posts are truly hilarious, this being an example.



AntarcticICe: I have a feeling JimZ is attempting to get more people on his side and greater support from those that already do back him. In another thread he started talking about God and those evil atheists. I have a feeling he's attempting to get behind people like Sagebrush and Maxx and others who think likewise.

Answer 13

Good point. I feel the same way about Norwegian music. It's Grieg to me.

Answer 14

I am engineer. My degree is in geological engineering. Engineering isn't one theory or any theory. If I claimed that because of my engineering knowledge, I knew that the earth was going to crack in two, and if people believed that uncritically they would have a cult like belief. It wouldn't reflect badly on engineering. It would only reflect badly on those who don't know the difference between a theory and a fact.



Talk about a straw man argument. AGW is a theory. Only the misinformed think that it equates to science. When you confuse your belief system with fact you are approaching a religious mind set. I don't have anything against religion but I do have a problem with those who bury their heads in the sand.



David, the reason engineers are probably right leaning is that they take a practical outlook on everything, or at least good engineers do.

Answer 15

Pretty much a FAIL!

Answer 16

Need help concerning your engineering questions? http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/index;_ylt=ApZLOURrwlfjSi2q3J5YHrnEDH1G;_ylv=3?sid=396545219



Ask those in the know. Stop wasting your time.

Answer 17

LOL :)



I also find it interesting that engineers, in general, tend to be right leaning.

Answer 18

Liberals have difficulty understanding words as 'logical' rather than 'emotional' implements. JFTR this is why you are not good at Math where words are devoid of any emotionality.



This is why Limbaugh repeatedly tells them that 'Words mean Things'.



For example, if I call Obama a Marxist, few Liberals are capable of understanding that I am 'describing' rather than 'insulting'. Libs hear emotion not logic.



So If I call AGW a 'Religion' a Liberal will only hear an Insult, not a Definition. For Libs the world Religion is purely an emotional term meaning "Foolish, False, Superstitious & Destructive"



The notion that "Religion" has a specific logical meaning, & that AGW matches that is simply beyond the scope of Liberal thought.



Hence the knee-jerk reaction to 'denials' Engineers, let's just insult it by calling it Religion then reject it.



You see the REASON so many Engineers reject the 'Religion' of AGW is because Engineering is not about beliefs which emotionally empower survival strategies, it's about understanding the Physics sufficiently to meet the spec. One's faith cannot rescue a bad design.



Scientists live & die by 'consensus'.

Engineers know the opinion of a billion morons or geniuses can't change Physics.



Michael Crichton on Environmentalism as a Religion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv9OSxTy1aU

Answer 19

It's not even warming, Fannie. Recent temperature data is adjusted upwards, while past data is adjusted downwards to give the appearance of warming. Satelite data from the '70s to now shows no warming trend at all. It is no warmer now than it has been in the past. We have cooled since the late 1990s. Look at the data, where the data comes from and what has been done to it and by whom.

Hanging your hat on lab experiments with CO2 and extrapolating this to a complex open system like our atmosphere/ocean is bad science.

You seem like a smart guy in that you are aware of your limitations. Apply that intelligence to climate science and see what you conclude.

Answer 20

Oh the irony. Engineers built the infrastructure to allowed you to post this nonsense "question" for the entire world to read.



That's about on par with thumbing your nose at the soldiers, sailors and airmen who fought and died so you could have the freedom to express your opinion regardless of how skewed and thoughtless it is.

Answer 21

From the greenies own mouths:



Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, mega-millionaire, and large CO2 producer: "The fate of mankind, as well as religion, depends on the emergence of a new faith in the future. Armed with such a faith, we might find it possible to resanctify the earth."



Quote by Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: "I envisage the prinicles of the Earth Charter to be a new form of the ten commandments. They lay the foundation for a sustainable global earth community."



Quote by David Suzuki, celebrity scientist, alarmist extraordinaire: “All life on Earth is our kin. And in an act of generosity, our relatives create the four sacred elements for us.”..."We have become a force of nature...Not long ago, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, drought, forest fires, even earthquakes and volcanic explosions were accepted as "natural disasters or "acts of God." But now, we have joined God, powerful enough to influence these events."



Quote by Maurice Strong, a wealthy elitist and primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer: "It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature."



Quote by Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: "Nature is my god. To me, nature is sacred; trees are my temples and forests are my cathedrals."



Quote by Global Education Associates, an environmental education group: Their daily Earth pledge - "I pledge allegiance to the Earth and all its sacred parts. Its water, land and living things and all its human hearts."



Ha! Ha! As we say, "We hold these truths to be self evident."



Quote by Nobel Prize Winner For Physics, Ivar Giaever: “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”



Quote by Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer of UK: “In Europe, where climate change absolutism is at its strongest, the quasi-religion of greenery in general and the climate change issue in particular have filled the vacuum of organised religion, with reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as a form of blasphemy.”



Both sides agree that it is a religion.



The only thing I would say is different between greenieism and religion. Once some one in religion prophesies and it doesn't come true they consider him or her a false prophet a after that he becomes a laughing stock. In the greenie movement they make heroes out of them and give Nobel prizes to them and put them on a throne shouting, "We have no King but Hansen."