The function of scientists is to advance science. They do not produce a product. Entire different disciplines and procedures are used to produce products than to advance science. In the advancement of science, peer-review and publication is the end of the process. In producing a product, maintaining customer satisfaction is the end of the process. (Yes, I know this is idealistic; selling the product and making a profit is what it is all about.) The scientists involved in the Climategate e-mails simply did not and do not exhibit the discipline required to produce a product, in this case the product is the global climate database.
Below I examine the debate over the Climategate issues in terms of difference in culture between the AGW scientists and the skeptics.
I worked 40 years as a design engineer. An engineer uses scientific principles to produce a useful product. Below is a description of the process and how it evolved over the years.
The textbook science includes mathematically derived formulas for structures, heat transfer, thermodynamics and dynamics. These can all be demonstrated by empirically.
Materials used in the process are defined by alloy composition and process limits. Mechanical properties are defined by empirical data over a number of different batches (heats) of the material. Test pieces from each subsequently produced batch are tested to assure the properties are maintained. Test pieces are retained.
A design is produced according to defined procedures and various specialists analyze it. Analytical computer models are produced to substantiate the design. From the design, a manufacturing plan is produced. Parts are produced under strict quality controls. Changes to the design or process are under controls. The end product is tested with instrumentation that will be used to calibrate the computer models and validate the design.
Unlike many other products, the use of our product was regulated by a government agency. At periodic intervals, our product was disassembled and inspected for wear, deterioration and structural integrity. Any unexpected problems found at these inspections could be costly to our company, our customer and the industry.
In my early time as a designer, our culture consisted of creating a design on paper, reviewing it with our peers and passing it over the wall to drafting who created manufacturing drawings. These in turn were passed it over another wall to manufacturing and they produced a part. One significant measure of success was whether or not you got any questions back from drafting or manufacturing.
This process and culture changed substantially over the years. Teams were created that included of all of the disciplines involved in the design. Advances in technology allowed us to replace paper drawings with computer models. The designer worked directly with a drafter to create a 3D computer model defining the design. The design was concurrently analyzed by specialty disciplines. Manufacturing also concurrently worked with the model. Often plastic models were created directly using stereolithography from the computer model. Everybody worked together, everybody’s input was valued and as a result a better product was produced.
In the early culture there was elitism among the degreed engineers, our peers. There was a strong ownership feeling of our design. Feedback was a criticism of our work, something to be avoided, disputed and maybe grudgingly accepted.
This may be a simplified, personal and even idealized view of the process. I tend to view the current Climategate scandal based on my experience.
COMMENTS
2 Comments
Cement a friend
February 27th, 2010 09:50 AM
You are correct that there is a big gulf between engineers and scientists. Most scientist think they know basic scientific laws but they do not understand the practical application and what can go wrong. In a process there can be contamination which builds up. There is corrosion and fatigue which leads to failure. Heat transfer is clearly an area where the so called “climate” scientists have no idea. The physics people may have some idea about the laws which influence radiation but it seems they can’t put all together with thermodynamics, convective heat transfer, heat in phase changes, fluid mechanics etc. Fancy talking about CO2 and cloud forcing! What dimension do they have? Do they understand temperature differences? Do they know about Nusselt or Reynolds numbers?
However, as with everything there are Engineers and engineers. I understand in the US that engineers may be BSc(Mech) from an assortment of university standards. This is sad because then engineers are identified with science. In Europe engineers are ING(Diplom) or Dr ING. I like the word Ingineur because it well describes the engineering mind- ingenuity. In Australia engineers are BE(mech, elect etc) ie they are firstly engineers. Engineers learn about statistics and finance in their courses because every engineering project revolves around costs and profits (capital, operating, maintenance, raw materials etc). Because of their wide training and experience engineers frequently go into administration. The chairman of Australia’s largest bank is an engineer. Unfortunately, there are not enough engineers in politics to oversight the nonsense initiated by all the lawyers, union officials and bookkeepers in government. The only engineer in the Australia parliament was one of the movers to vote down the ETS (emission trading scheme)
The AGW believers and the pseudo-”climate” scientists say the science is settled. Well I challenge them to prove that they even understand the basic technology such as heat transfer in a court of law where they can be jailed for perjury. I do not know the US law system but from what I have read the US EPA are going to get a beating. One only has to view the leaked internal EPA documents to see how they ignored the warnings form their own staff such as DR Alan Carlin see http://www.epalawsuit.com/, and http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/629
Steve A Morris
March 9th, 2010 12:15 PM
Well put.
Engineers do not make their living off research, but rather results. One issue I have found is that the AGW Advocates rely too heavily on ‘trapped’ Radiation (positive feedback), which is only ONE transfer of energy within a thermo-system while ignoring the Effects of Convection and Evaporation rates that increase as surface temps increase creating a ‘Negative Feedback”.
I dislike the terms positive and negative feedback in thermo-systems as they are simply mechanisms that are reacting to environmental changes similar to cogs reacting to the force being put upon them. Energy only travels from Higher to lower states, in nature, so positive and negative only serve to confuse the lay.
Scientists can exhibit tunnel vision by only looking at one part of a system while engineers MUST take all phenomena into account in order to create a system that works, not on paper or in models, but in reality and can be reproduced.
While the US has a Rule of Separation of Church and State, the EPA issues raise the need to also have a Separation of Science and State. Once you introduce Authority into Science, it is no longer Science. The Rule of Law applies to both Science and Government.