This has been a very intersting discussion. I have been involved in debating controversial issues over the years and it always ends up the same. If you do not agree with the "consensus" then there is something wrong with either your science, or you as a person. The subject does not matter.
For the global warming issue, both sides agree that we are currently in a warming trend, one does not need to have a degree in any particular discipline to see that. The question is why. The bigger questions is, why is it NOT okay to ask why. Conscensus is not achieved because 80+ percent of scientists and engineeers arrive at a particular conclusion by studing the data, it is arrived at because a few scientist or engineers told the rest of them this is how it is. Someone way back in the beginning of this thread made a comment about a theory being called a fact. When that happens, it simply means that we have stopped doing science and engineering, and started to believe the preacher with blind faith. There is nothing wrong with faith, as long as it is no blind.
Insulting Jon Titus is the kind of ad hominem attack I referred to in other posts that zeros-out credibility very quickly. The model evaluations conducted during Mt. Pinatubo make statements like "temperature change is consistent with the temperature anomalies observed". This is "modeling speak" for "my model gets the ups and downs mostly right". There were no claims of quantitative calibration. Heck, right out of college, I wrote a RADAR model whose detection ranges were better than "consistent with observed" but it was still crude and nowhere near calibrated to the point where the Navy could use it to choose between two competing systems under all circumstances.
Yet calibration and consistency under all circumstances are exactly what is necessary to base the kinds of decisions pushed by the AGW agenda. At the present time, the magnitude of the errors in climate predictions and inability to attain anything remotely called "calibration" makes using the words "incontrovertible" and "human-caused" in the same sentence quite pretentious. Books like the "Long Thaw" written by very smart people making catastrophic predictions based on qualitative information and educated conjecture do nothing to further the knowledge necessary to make public policy decisions on. The Professor did make a good living on the book sales and has the prestige of being "published", but I would say that a positive contribution to the dialog was not one of its attributes.
I live on the East Coast of Florida and every year I get to see the Hurricane Path Predictions based on not one model but usually on nearly a dozen of the best models that the smartest meteorologists could produce. The best we can get is human interpretation of the different results provided. Accuracy is measured in hundreds of miles and consistency is often missing. To make matters worse, at times the actual movement is "mis-reported" or "not-reported" if it does not support the evacuation decisions already made by civil authorities. So the best weather and atmospheric science is hard pressed to make predictions to the accuracy needed by climate models to determine public policies. Yet the Climate models ore not as precise and do not consider all factors known to affect the results (clouds etc.) and we are supposed to trust them more than Hurricane movement predcitions.
What interests me here amid the robust discussion is, what makes a scientific discussion become overwhelmed by politics. Or, more specficially, which kinds of scientific issues are likely to become politicized. So, for example, irradiation of food became politicized briefly, but then that died off. (Likely because the area itself didn't have "legs.") I'm trying to think of other examples, but can't. Probably the closest is the population explosion debate circa 1970, although as I recall, that one was more poltical than scientific. This one (global warming) has both lots of science and lots of non-scientists. (The two groups seem to be having separate debates.) Anyway, there's a very interesting social dynamic in that, at this point, it's somewhat pointless to engage because no discussion changes anyone's viewpoint. (That's why the psychological dynamic is of such interest to me.)
It appears by your assertion that UK engineers suffer from "group think". It is not that surprising that US engineers are independant and don't bow to "royalty" be it political or 'scientific'.
I am just as capable (probably more) than the "climate scientists" on either side. So the 'scientists' should just show their data and methodolgies and let us decide who is lying on our own. Pretty simple solution huh?
Ok, I'm an Engineer, and this shouldn't be rocket science. Since atmospheric CO2 is supposed to be the bad guy -- show me a documented state diagram for atmospheric CO2 flow. Include a diagram that lists all CO2 sources by percentage, as well as all of the CO2 consumers by percentage, along with yearly overall flow rate between the two processes. This would be worth more than a thousand words...
You allege that science has gotten it wrong, so prove it. I doubt that science got it wrong with regards to contrails as there might have been conclusions drawn that warned of a "threat" but was debated and the conclusions evolved. For example, in World War II Bombing Raids Offer New Insight Into the Effects of Aviation On Climate, the study's authors note that "...but quantifiable data on the impact of AIC remains rare."
As for ozone depleting chemicals, in Significant Ozone Hole Remains Over Antarctica it is noted that "Levels of most ozone-depleting chemicals are slowly declining due to international action, but many have long lifetimes, remaining in the atmosphere for decades." You claim to have a Ph.D in chemistry, so you should have known that.
As for the irrelevant stats and "heat island" situated sensors, Richard Muller states in The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism: There were good reasons for doubt, until now.that "Remarkably, the poorly ranked stations showed no greater temperature increases than the better ones. The mostly likely explanation is that while low-quality stations may give incorrect absolute temperatures, they still accurately track temperature changes." So, there is no bias in sensors positioned in urban areas (heat islands.
So, where're your citations? Your post is totally devoid of citations and illustrates the problem with science today. If you're really a PhD, then I'm surprised. I'm interested to see how you run your blog.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.