David Holland, a 60-something electrical engineer in Britain, has emerged as a leading climate skeptic in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) debate.  Being an engineer, I can attest that what he said over the weekend was spot on:

These guys called climate scientists have not done any more physics or chemistry than I did. A lifetime in engineering gives you a very good antenna. It also cures people of any self belief they cannot be wrong. You clear up a lot of messes during a lifetime in engineering. I could be wrong on global warming – I know that – but the guys on the other side don’t believe they can ever be wrong.

Get this straight right now:  liberals are NEVER wrong.  Merely by suggesting they might be you become the enemy.

Holland is right about the practice of engineering.  It quickly absolves all doubt about one’s infallibility and ability to predict the outcomes of extremely complex interrelationships (such as long-term climate).  This is the kind of realism that is not allowed in most of academia, probably because it would crowd out the certainty.

Most “climate scientists” have advanced degrees in either climatology or meteorology.  A few are physicists; fewer still are geologists.  The academic credentials for these folks, as Holland notes, generally do not exceed those for us run-of-the-mill engineers.  They chose to stay in academia where they could make computer models that faithfully confirm their hypotheses, whereas we elected to live in a sphere where the reality of uncertainty rudely intrudes on a daily basis.  Nevertheless, engineers are routinely disbelieved by the left whereas climate scientists of all stripes are routinely exalted as demi-gods.  This disparity is more evidence – were more needed – of the bias in favor of AGW among the media and cultural left.