-
Please Donate
-
Search
-
Categories
-
Recent Posts
- Analysis of a joke
- Our snowiest winter
- Ball wins: All it took was a few decent people willing to stand up against tyranny.
- On the nature of scepticism: Sceptic versus science
- Does this paper prove there is virtually no CO2 greenhouse effect?
- 9899
- Bored of the snow – critical angle of snow
- Beryllium-10: The volcanoes triggered the interglacial.
- Why the CO2 “heat trapping” or Greenhouse “blanket” model is wrong
- Acid Rain and 1970-2000 Global warming
- Mann: if the model does not fit the data, change the data
- Trumps global warming tweet
- Insane unreliables: to cost 10,000 Euros per household – Happy Newyear
- Global Boring
- Protected: Dick Lindzen described this bit as groteque – and he agrees!
- Greenhouse theories compared
- The necessary requirements for a “Greenhouse effect”
- The connection between Global Warming and the earth’s core temperature
- Climate fraudsters
- Climate Swings & Roundabouts
-
Recent Comments
- Doonhamer on Analysis of a joke
- Guirme on Our snowiest winter
- Jimmy Haigh on Our snowiest winter
- Guirme on On the nature of scepticism: Sceptic versus science
- Robert Holmes on Does this paper prove there is virtually no CO2 greenhouse effect?
-
Top Posts & Pages
- The Truth about the Highland Clearances
- Scots: more words for rain than Eskimos for snow
- Enerconics: The Relationship between Energy and GDP
- About
- Videos
- Proposed Scottish Motorway System
- Predicting the surface temperature on other planets
- How to run a house off the car battery
- Our snowiest winter
- #m80 Snow Chaos hits Scottish Roads





So 636 respondents have worked in Engineering for more than 1 year (Q08), but 2654 have worked in Engineering for more than 1 year (Q09). Similarly, 1050 responded that they worked in Science for more than 1 year (Q05), but 2388 responded working for over 1 year in Science (Q06).
Huh?
Apologies. I asked for funding to do a proper analysis and I was told the government(s) were not interested.
This question was to prevent asking details to those who had not worked in engineering (or science on the other). There are three flows:
1. If someone said they had worked in engineering (science) they bypassed the question and went direct to the questions on engineering (science)
2. If they had not explicitly said they had worked in science and engineering, then if they said yes to this … they went to the section on engineering (science)
3. If they said no, they bypassed the questions on engineering (science)
You don’t need funding to design, collate and analyse a decent survey. £26 to SurveyMonkey and you could’ve had a survey that allowed the respondent to choose if they were a scientist or engineer, and have the survey direct them through to the relevant questions for them. Even without an automatic process, it would be simple enough to ask the right questions.
Instead, you’ve got wildly varying answers to what are essentially the same questions, which means that your data are worthless since they’re totally inconsistent with each other.
Perhaps if you didn’t devote so much of your time to building walls between you and ‘science’ [sic] then you might find someone to collaborate with and do this properly.
Anyone can ask a question, what takes time money and skill is to know what the answer means.
In order to earn my BSME I was required to demonstrate competence in: chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, heat transfer, statistics, calculus, advanced algebra. et. al. And as an applied science, engineering is more than models and chalk board scribbles, it actually has to work, to prove itself with real results. “climate science” is a fabricated field intended to lend a false impression that they somehow have special knowledge or skills the rest of us don’t. BS^2!