Freeman Dyson smacks down global warming

[heartsurgeon]

the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated

very interesting read. i enjoyed the comments about how the modeling is incomplete and crude.

Dyson makes the same point that other have made (and been ridiculed for)...more carbon in the atmosphere should stimulate plant growth..fertilizer!!

the comment about the source of natural gas is also fascinating!!

let er rip boys!!

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated

very interesting read. i enjoyed the comments about how the modeling is incomplete and crude.

Dyson makes the same point that other have made (and been ridiculed for)...more carbon in the atmosphere should stimulate plant growth..fertilizer!!

the comment about the source of natural gas is also fascinating!!

let er rip boys!!

..yea but it gives the eco-theists something to hold hands and "om" about.

 

[newmachineoverlord]

Although increased CO2 can lead to increased plant growth under some conditions, those conditions may not occur in the real world, and plant growth can in fact be decreased. In the real world nitrogen and water are more likely to be limiting to growth than carbon dioxide concentration. http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jasperplots-124.html

There obviously isn't enough plant growth to stop CO2 levels from increasing since if there was, levels wouldn't be increasing (and they are.)

Edit: Some reading for those who are still mislead into thinking there is some rational basis to doubt the existence or negative impact of global climate c hange.

http://www.treehugger.com/file...stages_denial.php#ch01
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w.../ipcc-highlights2.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

"The IPCC projections show drought-prone areas of Africa to be particularly vulnerable to food shortages due to a reduction in the land area suitable for agriculture; some rain-fed crop yields could decline as much as 50 percent by 2020."

Changing temperatures can also influence the distribution of pests, increasing their range and spreading disease.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Yay! Another global warming thread.

I almost think these should be banned.

1. Everyone's mind is already made up before the OP has even thought of posting whatever it is he is going to post. (Whatever side of the "debate" he's on)

2. They all devolve into religious flame wars where the believers ridicule the non-believers and vice versa (reagardless of any presented evidence - gotta have faith! - on both sides) and are adamant that the non-believers will end up in eco-hell. It really is a radical athiest/christian paradigm.

3. It's always the same people making the same arguments and starting the same flame wars. It's like continuting to have sex with an ex-girlfriend. *orgasm* BITCH! ASSHOLE! *continuation of old arguments*

I know what I believe to be true. Regurgitating it every 60 days won't change the general consensus here just like hearing the regurgitations of others won't change my opinion.

Just my $.02

 

[jjzelinski]

"I know what I believe to be true, that sentence doesnt even make sense.

However "*orgasm* BITCH! ASSHOLE! *continuation of old arguments*" is funny as hell

 

[StageLeft]

Not gonna read that right now, but yes the modelling is pathetic, which is why I give little credence to anything the science is saying right now. It's very contradictory and vague and inaccurate, consistently.

 

[Lemon law]

To me, the number one point Dyson made is the need for heretics and challenging what is presently known. Which is precisely how science advances and is in the best traditions of science. So be it resolved, science has one hell of a lot to learn about global warming.

But sadly Dyson has zero to say about our present dilemma. Given that we do not perfectly understand the science now, is that a reason to do nothing about a rapid rise in CO2 levels or not?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Yay! Another global warming thread.

I almost think these should be banned.

Notice however it is only the resident Republicans starting the new GW threads in an attempt to counter scientific and easily observable truth.

Notice they don't post latest scientist backed info like this from yesterday:

8-10-2007 Arctic sea ice 'lowest in recorded history': scientist

Sea ice in the northern hemisphere has plunged to the lowest levels ever measured, a US Arctic specialist said Friday, adding that it was likely part of the long-term trend of polar ice melt driven by global warming.

University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana Arctic climate expert William Chapman told AFP that Arctic sea ice had plunged to new lows some 30 days before the normal point of the annual minimum.

He also said that with a lower ice cover and fewer clouds this year, the waters of the Arctic are being exposed to more intense sunlight, further warming them.

"As of yesterday and today ... we have set a historical low for sea ice in the northern hemisphere," he said.
===============================================

So here is a scientist specializing in the artic and has actually been there Vs a Princeton Math professor that admits he has not been there countering other scientists.

I ask you what is the agenda and motivation for the Professor that has not been there?

Unless the radical righties, specifically the one that posted the OP in this case, can prove this math professor has not been paid as an anti-Global Warming shill by the GOP and the Bush Administration I have a hard time believing the so called learned opinion of the Princeton Professor or the OP and their groupies.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Notice however it is only the resident Republicans starting the new GW threads in an attempt to counter scientific and easily observable truth.

Notice they don't post latest scientist backed info like this from yesterday:

8-10-2007 Arctic sea ice 'lowest in recorded history': scientist

Scientist backed info

The best of the herd paintings date from roughly six thousand years ago. They are strong evidence that the Sahara at that time was wet. There was enough rain to support herds of cows and giraffes, which must have grazed on grass and trees. There were also some hippopotamuses and elephants. The Sahara then must have been like the Serengeti today.

At the same time, roughly six thousand years ago, there were deciduous forests in Northern Europe where the trees are now conifers, proving that the climate in the far north was milder than it is today. There were also trees standing in mountain valleys in Switzerland that are now filled with famous glaciers. The glaciers that are now shrinking were much smaller six thousand years ago than they are today.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Notice however it is only the resident Republicans starting the new GW threads in an attempt to counter scientific and easily observable truth.

Notice they don't post latest scientist backed info like this from yesterday:

8-10-2007 Arctic sea ice 'lowest in recorded history': scientist

Scientist backed info

The best of the herd paintings date from roughly six thousand years ago. They are strong evidence that the Sahara at that time was wet. There was enough rain to support herds of cows and giraffes, which must have grazed on grass and trees. There were also some hippopotamuses and elephants. The Sahara then must have been like the Serengeti today.

At the same time, roughly six thousand years ago, there were deciduous forests in Northern Europe where the trees are now conifers, proving that the climate in the far north was milder than it is today. There were also trees standing in mountain valleys in Switzerland that are now filled with famous glaciers. The glaciers that are now shrinking were much smaller six thousand years ago than they are today.

Which is why I call it Global Extremes and we don't need to be helping it.

We can work with the planet, not against it is all I have been saying.

4th millennium BC - Environmental changes

Based on studies by glaciologist Lonnie Thompson (professor at Ohio State University and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center) [1] a number of indicators shows there was a global change in climate 5,200 years ago:

The climate was altered suddenly with severe impacts.

Plants buried in the Quelccaya Ice Cap in the Peruvian Andes demonstrate the climate had shifted suddenly and severely to capture the plants and preserve them until now.

A man trapped in an Alpine glacier ("Ötzi the Iceman") is frozen until his discovery in 1991.

Tree rings from Ireland and England show this was their driest period.

Ice core records showing the ratio of two oxygen isotopes retrieved from the ice fields atop Africa?s Mount Kilimanjaro, a proxy for atmospheric temperature at the time snow fell.

Major changes in plant pollen uncovered from lakebed cores in South America.

Record lowest levels of methane retrieved from ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica.

Beginning of desertification of Sahara (35th century BC). The shift by the Sahara Desert from a habitable region to a barren desert.

Disastrous floods in Mesopotamian region

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Not gonna read that right now, but yes the modelling is pathetic, which is why I give little credence to anything the science is saying right now. It's very contradictory and vague and inaccurate, consistently.

..and largely agenda drivin by algore and other emission credit racketeers. And gives the eco-theists the gloom and doom they so much relish.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

very interesting read. i enjoyed the comments about how the modeling is incomplete and crude.

The most "interesting" part of that "read" is how incomplete and crude his unsbustantiated opinion is.

let er rip boys!!

Why bother? You already posted this fart of a thread. The most significant and accurate thing he said is:

Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak.

Assuming for the moment that there really is any debate about the subject, it gets down to an argument similar to whether there's a god. Specifically, if you assume there isn't, and you're wrong, you could be doomed to an eternal hell, while, if you assume there is, and you're wrong, you haven't lost anything. There are differences:

1. If you similarly dismiss predictions of the catastrophic consequenses resulting from man made contributions to global warming, the odds are much greater that the realizations of those consequenses will occur in your lifetime.
   
2. There is NO question that we human beings are altering the environment by dumping significant quantities of pollutants into it. The only questions are whether those pollutants are affecting the Earth's climate and ecosystem, how long it will take to happen and whether there is anything we can do about it.
   
3. If you're wrong about the existence of a deity, you are the only one who will suffer the alleged consequences. If you're wrong about man made global warming or any other ecological destruction, continuing your selfish, destructive behavior affects all of humanity.

There's plenty we can do, and have already done, about these problems. Business interests have been far too slow to pick up on it, but they are beginning to act. Hybrid cars, alternative energy systems, wide scale recycling by cities and states and cleaner industrial production facilities are just a few examples of what can be accomplished once human beings put their minds to it.

I think doing nothing and ignoring the possible consequenses is well beyond the tolerable ego limits for any one human being. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

Freeman Dyson, the author of the article at your link, is a professor of physics who freely acknowledges he isn't qualified to do more than venture his less than qualified opinion on the subject. Did they teach you anything in heart surgery school that qualifies you as any more of an authority? :roll:

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Not gonna read that right now, but yes the modelling is pathetic, which is why I give little credence to anything the science is saying right now. It's very contradictory and vague and inaccurate, consistently.

..and largely agenda drivin by algore and other emission credit racketeers. And gives the eco-theists the gloom and doom they so much relish.

every time you post this tripe. Eco-theist? That makes you and all deniers, eco-terrorists then.

 

[BoberFett]

Dave, you wouldn't know truth if it bit you in the ass.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Dave, you wouldn't know truth if it bit you in the ass.

and what does that have to do with the topic???

 

[heartsurgeon]

Freeman Dyson, the author of the article at your link, is a professor of physics who freely acknowledges he isn't qualified to do more than venture his less than qualified opinion on the subject. Did they teach you anything in heart surgery school that qualifies you as any more of an authority?

pray tell us your about your "credentials,"

mine include Johns Hopkins University and the Mayo Clinic.
I believe Prof. Dyson's include Cambridge, and he works at Princeton....

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Freeman Dyson, the author of the article at your link, is a professor of physics who freely acknowledges he isn't qualified to do more than venture his less than qualified opinion on the subject. Did they teach you anything in heart surgery school that qualifies you as any more of an authority?

pray tell us your about your "credentials,"

mine include Johns Hopkins University and the Mayo Clinic.
I believe Prof. Dyson's include Cambridge, and he works at Princeton....

Wow, he must be right about everything then

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
mine include Johns Hopkins University and the Mayo Clinic.

I believe my credentials are irrelevant to the discussion. Like you and Professor Dyson, I have no degree in meteorology. However, unlike either of you, I make no pretense of being qualified to challenge the conclusions of the vast majority of those educated, practiced and skilled in the science and art of climatology while presenting absolutely no objective data to support such conclusions.

That said, I am competent in some fields of technology. I've been an electronic design engineer designing professional audio products for almost 40 years, and I have two patents for analog multipliers... essentially, the best analog volume controls in the world.

U.S. Patent 4,155,047

U.S. Patent 5,157,350

I believe Prof. Dyson's include Cambridge, and he works at Princeton....

So? Since when does his place of employment mean diddly squat when he's addressing subjects that, by his own admission, are not within his field of expertise? :roll:

By your logic, I guess you'd call him to lend a hand with your next coronary bypass.

et vu?

I'm also better at French, which I also studied. You meant to ask, et vous? or, if we were friends, et tu?

Compris? D'accord. :laugh:

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Freeman Dyson, the author of the article at your link, is a professor of physics who freely acknowledges he isn't qualified to do more than venture his less than qualified opinion on the subject. Did they teach you anything in heart surgery school that qualifies you as any more of an authority?

pray tell us your about your "credentials,"

mine include Johns Hopkins University and the Mayo Clinic.

Vivien Thomas, is that you? Next you will be telling us you were in on the blue baby operation and pioneered TOF repair, lol, you are silly :thumbsup:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Freeman Dyson, the author of the article at your link, is a professor of physics who freely acknowledges he isn't qualified to do more than venture his less than qualified opinion on the subject. Did they teach you anything in heart surgery school that qualifies you as any more of an authority?

pray tell us your about your "credentials,"

mine include Johns Hopkins University and the Mayo Clinic.
I believe Prof. Dyson's include Cambridge, and he works at Princeton....

That's the problem with this debate...you're just looking for an EXCUSE for your beliefs, instead of trying to find out the facts. While I'm sure that your knowledge gained from Johns Hopkins and the Mayo Clinic is all very impressive, it was presumably not in the field of meteorology or climate study. And Professor Dyson, while no doubt a well educated individual, is by his own admission a professor of PHYSICS, and speaking well outside of his area of expertise here. If I need enlightening about a valve repair or unified field theory, I'll talk to one of you...but who gives a shit what you think about climate change?

The fact is that while you're able to trot out a number of individuals who seem at least somewhat credible in the general sense, opinion among CLIMATE SCIENTISTS is pretty firmly set against your point of view. And since this is their area, after all, I think I'll listen to them instead of a bunch of pretentious elitists who think they are qualified to comment on something totally outside of their realm of knowledge...an act you would no doubt find highly annoying being directed at you.

 

[sandorski]

If I ever am recommended Heart Surgery, I'll go to a Climatologist for a Second Opinion!!!

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Unless the radical righties, specifically the one that posted the OP in this case, can prove this math professor has not been paid as an anti-Global Warming shill by the GOP and the Bush Administration I have a hard time believing the so called learned opinion of the Princeton Professor or the OP and their groupies.

You need to watch your fucking mouth sometimes Dave. Freeman Dyson is an extremely well respected individual in scientific circles, and even though I don't agree with him on this point, your unfounded implied accusations are ridiculous and arrogant.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
[
let er rip boys!!

Another tard.... Well, if you think we've slowed down because of global warming your misinformed again. We're burning more coal and oil then ever before.... Nothing is changing in that department.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: HarveyHybrid cars, alternative energy systems, wide scale recycling by cities and states and cleaner industrial production facilities are just a few examples of what can be accomplished once human beings put their minds to it.

Except pretty much all of those things are currently very bad for the environment. The lifetime environmental footprint of a Prius is larger than that of a Hummer. Recycling a paper cup takes three times the energy (and thus three times the carbon emissions) of making a new styrofoam one. People like to wrap themselves in these feel-good solutions without actually knowing anything about them.

 

[newmachineoverlord]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: HarveyHybrid cars, alternative energy systems, wide scale recycling by cities and states and cleaner industrial production facilities are just a few examples of what can be accomplished once human beings put their minds to it.

Except pretty much all of those things are currently very bad for the environment. The lifetime environmental footprint of a Prius is LESS than that of a Hummer. Recycling a paper cup takes three times the energy (and thus three times the carbon emissions) of making a new styrofoam one. People like to wrap themselves in these feel-good solutions without actually knowing anything about them.

partly Fixed
http://www.thecarconnection.co..._Myth.S196.A12220.html