The Difference Between Engineers And Scientists

Engineers in industry know that their continued employment depends on being brutally honest and accurate. When engineering fails, there is no place to hide.

Scientist’s employment has different challenges. They have to convince politicians that they should receive money for their research. The easiest way to do this is by hypothesizing about future potential disasters. The global warming gravy train has been the most reliable ever, and honesty and accuracy got crushed on the tracks sometime around the year 2000.

The vast majority of “climate change scientists” have no marketable or useful skills. For people in that position, honesty and accuracy are irrelevant. It is all about survival of their pay check, not survival of the planet.

I write this blog because I am a scientist/engineer who is no longer dependent of science funding for my livelihood, and I have never seen such a bunch of horseshit as this global warming scam in my life. I was a true believer in global warming for 30 years – until I actually delved into looking at the data for myself.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to The Difference Between Engineers And Scientists

  1. DrFurstDunaharm aka Richard Windsor says:

    I’ve said it many times. The “scientific method” has been trampled into money management by the “scientific ponzi scheme”.

    Problem is – eventually someone goes to jail. Who’s it gonna be?

  2. gator69 says:

    “A scientist, in a broad sense, is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method.”

    Not seeing any of those at the IPCC. I am seeing them on the blogosphere.

    “An engineer is a professional practitioner of engineering, concerned with applying scientific knowledge, mathematics and ingenuity to develop solutions for technical, social and economic problems.”

    Seeing alot of these in skeptic ranks. Zero amongst alarmists.

  3. John B., M.D. says:

    Well said!

  4. Don B says:

    There are also differences between scientists and engineers, and those who write opinion pieces for the NY Times. In the print edition of the opinion section, Sunday Review, 2/3 of the front page is a picture of the Statue of Liberty up to her chin in rising AGW caused sea level rise!

    “Whether in 50 or 100 or 200 years, there is a good chance New York City will sink beneath the sea.”

    “Is This the End?” is one of three articles – a target rich enviornment, Steven.

  5. TimiBoy says:

    Wrong. Scientists work for Gaia, Engineers work for Big Oil. That’s why you drive a Maserati, isn’t it Steven?

    What’s that, you don’t drive a Maserati? You’re not stinking rich off the backs of Oil Barons and Tobacco Sharks? Sorry, it’s impossible to believe you, despite all the facts you don’t fit the model.

    Keep up the good work…

    • I drive a Scattante, thanks!

    • higley7 says:

      Since Gaia does not exist, you might as well say that scientists work for the Tooth Fairy. Working for Big Oil is a Liberal myth, creating a demon to hate.

      However, as CO2 is plant food and we need all we can get, particularly as we are cooling and food production is threatened, working for Big Oil (which by the way makes less % profit than most industries) and using carbon fuels is to save the world and the lives of millions.

      We should feel like heroes as we drive to work, especially as we now know that natural gas and oil are NOT fossil, but Earth’s core-origin fuels that are essentially renewable in the long term and available almost everywhere that we drill down deep enough.

      We have cleaned up our coal-fired power plant emissions quite well since the 1970s and our air is in great shape—also found that the atmosphere is much better at cleaning itself than previously thought. Despite the whiners and alarmist and the EPA and WHO making totally unsupported claims of health threats, our energy supply should be made larger and more efficient, with no regard for the CO2 component as it is beneficial, not harmful.

      If the whiners and alarmists really were knowledgeable and honest, they would be all about nuclear power, having the smallest and most “green” footprint of all energy sources. And they would be pushing the development of thorium liquid reactors as the cheapest of all nuclear reactors, which, being already liquid, cannot melt down. These are ridiculously simple reactors which were not originally pursued for general use as the radioactive products cannot be used to build nuclear bombs.

      But, the AGW scammers are all about Agenda 21 goals and taking the world’s wealth, so they are all about every means of destroying prosperity and general welfare, just as Obamacare is all about restricting medical care, raising costs, denying service, and shortening life spans.

  6. Dave N says:

    Up until about 5 years ago, I used to swallow the AGW line (and other “scare stories”), then I started reading independent news services, which led me to read papers that would otherwise have zero coverage in the media.

    The driving issue behind my skepticism of AGW is the lack of empirical evidence of a connection between increasing CO2 and catastrophic warming (or dirty weather, etc). Recently, I also discovered that one of the main concepts being pushed by alarmists, namely “back radiation” does not appear in any texts being taught, nor has any observations even confirm its existence.

    Moreover, alarmists change their tactics when the message is failing. Not warming? Let’s invent “dirty weather”: proclaim that extreme events are increasing, even when there’s a plethora of evidence of extreme events in the past. Alarmists are relying on the short attention span (or poor memory) of many, and sadly, many swallow it.

    I’m a software engineer, and like other engineers, my livelihood relies upon being brutally accurate in that work. The only thing extreme in alarmists ravings is their language and the supreme lack of absolutes; they wouldn’t last 5 minutes in a real job.

    Some time ago, I cam across an article that listed around 25 or so “predictions” or worldwide scare stories that turned out to be complete (or close to) deceptions. I recall it including the “dangers” of DDT which led to its banning, and a lack of a link between CFCs and the ozone layer. If anyone is able to find it, I recommend reading it, because the AGW scam would take its place at the top, likely never to be challenged.

  7. tckev says:

    Science is about analyzing and explaining nature.
    Engineering is about harnessing nature.
    Greens are about believing in nature.

    • Edmonton Al says:

      True until fairly recently when Greens became Reds.[watermelons]
      It’s all about the political agenda nowadays. To hell with science as far as they’re concerned.
      Also, perfectly said Steve.

  8. gds44 says:

    Reblogged this on Gds44's Blog.

  9. G. Watkins says:

    Full of admiration for you Steven. Forensic dissection of the false science leaves the doom-sayers with no answers. Many who have never heard of you will owe you a debt when this fraud collapses under its own inconsistencies.
    Thanks from an appreciate Welshman.

  10. Sparks says:

    I’m also an Engineer, I Routinely work with and install high-voltage 3-phase consumer units and circuits, in schools, businesses etc.. If I or my colleagues were to make a mistake and depending on how serious it was we could end up in prison and face huge fines.

    Ten years ago I installed a lighting rig and a large robotic lighting system in a new-build, it was a large nightclub. After about a year the venue had received noise complaints so the the place was sound proofed, It turned out that the sound proofing they put in was installed on top of an artificial ceiling and was far too heavy, One night the venue hosted an under 18’s foam party and the false ceiling collapsed onto the lighting rig that I installed, because I fitted the rig above the artificial ceiling it actually held all that weight long enough for the venue to be evacuated.
    I was informed that had I cut corners and installed the rig to the artificial ceiling not only could there have been serious fatalities to a lot of kids our engineers may have been prosecuted. But it turned out the only thing that failed was the screw rods which were not designed to hold up the weight of an artificial ceiling and all the heavy sound proofing, the rods stretched until they finally snapped.

  11. Steve Keohane says:

    Is a scientist who does no engineering a scientist? Anyone can make conjecture, without connecting to empirical reality, is it science?

  12. I think people get disappointed when the the mythos around scientists clashes with what individual scientists actually do.

  13. F. Guimaraes says:

    Great post Steve! I used to believe in GW too, up to 2005, in 2006 I started to notice that “something was wrong” because the year was too calm after so many hurricanes and tornadoes in the previous years. I even read somewhere that the temperatures were actually dropping at the end of 2006… then, I started to look around and read more attentively if GW was really happening the way “people” were saying… it wasn’t. Quite the opposite was happening.
    Lies are short lived, sooner or later everyone will know that this “horseshit”, as you appropriately name it, is obviously not happening.
    Too bad it has now become a “political problem” too, this means the lies will have a little longer life than “normal”.

Leave a Reply