World's top physicist and "climate change"

[John Connor]

The climate models used by alarmist scientists to predict global warming are getting worse, not better; carbon dioxide does far more good than harm; and President Obama has backed the “wrong side” in the war on “climate change.”
So says one of the world’s greatest theoretical physicists, Dr Freeman Dyson (pictured above), the British-born, naturalised American citizen who worked at Princeton University as a contemporary of Einstein and has advised the US government on a wide range of scientific and technical issues.
In an interview with Andrew Orlowski of The Register, Dyson expressed his despair at the current scientific obsession with climate change which he says is “not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to the obvious facts.”

http://100percentfedup.com/wow-worl...ate-change-follow-money-carbon-far-good-harm/


This guy figured out how many atoms are in the sun at age five! I wouldn't know how to add 4+4 at that age! LOL

 

[master_shake_]

he's got a lot of awards and honours but no nobel prize.

al gore has a nobel prize.

his argument is invalid.

:biggrin:

 

[John Connor]

LOL Ever since Obozo got one, I can safely say that the Peace prize is bull shit.

 

[shira]

Dyson isn't a climatologist. Why would you think he's qualified to make pronouncements on climate science?

 

[Jaskalas]

The climate models used by alarmist scientists to predict global warming are getting worse, not better;

I'm sure we can adjust the surface data, sprinkle it with some quality ship bucket records, and prove that we're warming faster than ever.

 

[Greenman]

Dyson isn't a climatologist. Why would you think he's qualified to make pronouncements on climate science?

I'm going to guess he has some small knowledge of the scientific method, and perhaps knows a bit about data gathering and analyses. While that may not elevate him to the level of "forum know it all", it does lend some small credence to his statements.

 

[Brian Stirling]

http://100percentfedup.com/wow-worl...ate-change-follow-money-carbon-far-good-harm/


This guy figured out how many atoms are in the sun at age five! I wouldn't know how to add 4+4 at that age! LOL

And another noble laureate claimed blacks are inferior.

Dyson is an old guy that doesn't much respect climate science and has bought into the claims made by the paid opponents of climate change.

I'd argue you'd have to take off your shoes to count beyond 10 -- at your current age!


Brian

 

[MongGrel]

LOL Ever since Obozo got one, I can safely say that the Peace prize is bull shit.

Well about every post I've seen from you since I've been here is BS, so what the hell I guess.

You can't even make a burrito right.

 

[sandorski]

Perhaps he can submit his Data/Findings then?

 

[John Connor]

Perhaps he can submit his Data/Findings then?

Shit.. if he did they'd throw the RICO act at him! http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...obal_warming_skeptics_under_the_rico_act.html

 

[sandorski]

Shit.. if he did they'd throw the RICO act at him! http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...obal_warming_skeptics_under_the_rico_act.html

So, No he doesn't.

His opinion on Climatology is definitely not Science.

 

[PowerEngineer]

I'm going to guess he has some small knowledge of the scientific method, and perhaps knows a bit about data gathering and analyses. While that may not elevate him to the level of "forum know it all", it does lend some small credence to his statements.

I'll grant you that.

Let's note, however, that he's not arguing that climate change isn't happening. He's arguing that the climate change (i.e. the increase in carbon dioxide) is moving the world toward a better climate.

Call me a "conservative", but I'm not enough of a gambler to accept the bet that we know enough about the world climate to start making improvements.

 

[shira]

I'm going to guess he has some small knowledge of the scientific method, and perhaps knows a bit about data gathering and analyses. While that may not elevate him to the level of "forum know it all", it does lend some small credence to his statements.

This is knowledge that has nothing specifically to do with climate science. Unless he's specifically studied climate models and the specific research related to them, he doesn't know jack shit about climatology. He's even admitted as much in a quotation cited in the article about him in Wikepedia:

Dyson says his views on global warming have been strongly criticized. In reply, he notes that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."

The fact he refers to "global warming propaganda" in the same sentence that he states that he doesn't "know much" about the "technical facts," just makes him look like an idiot.

He may not like how "people behave," but that doesn't make the information disseminated on climate change "propaganda."

 

[John Connor]

Remember... when it's hot outside it's "global warming." When it's cold outside it's"climate change."

http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/17/b...-change-not-global-warming-when-its-cold-out/

Is he a "climate scientist"

 

[John Connor]

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html?m=1

 

[MongGrel]

I think it is one of those rare times I have to agree.

 

[shira]

Remember... when it's hot outside it's "global warming." When it's cold outside it's"climate change."

I guess scientists started perpetrating the name-change scam in 1956.

Where did the terms come from?

The term ‘global warming’ was first used in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University. He wrote a paper called "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming”. (Note the use of the term ‘climatic change’). Here’s NASA historian Erik Conway on the significance of the term:

"Broecker's term was a break with tradition. Earlier studies of human impact on climate had called it "inadvertent climate modification." This was because while many scientists accepted that human activities could cause climate change, they did not know what the direction of change might be. Industrial emissions of tiny airborne particles called aerosols might cause cooling, while greenhouse gas emissions would cause warming. Which effect would dominate?

For most of the 1970s, nobody knew. So "inadvertent climate modification," while clunky and dull, was an accurate reflection of the state of knowledge".

Source: NASA, What's in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change

The term ‘climate change’ has its origins further back in time. In 1956, the physicist Gilbert Plass published a seminal study called "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change". In 1977 the journal Climatic Change made its first appearance. Within another decade, the term ‘climate change’ was in common use, and embedded in the name of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was formed in 1988.

So it's actually "global warming" that's the more recent term. And climatologists didn't start using THAT term - in 1975 - until there was a consensus that the overall effect of human behavior on climate was to cause warming.

So how come it's only in the past few years that climate-deniers have started insisting that "climate change" is double-talk, when that term has been around for almost 60 years? Maybe it's because all of the other climate-denial talking points are failing.

 

[OutHouse]

And another noble laureate claimed blacks are inferior.

Dyson is an old guy that doesn't much respect climate science and has bought into the claims made by the paid opponents of climate change.

I'd argue you'd have to take off your shoes to count beyond 10 -- at your current age!


Brian

You voted for Gore didnt you.

 

[shira]

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html?m=1

It's infuriating to even try to explain the scientific method to someone so deeply committed to ignorance.

According to you, climatology cannot be trusted because contemporary climate models disagree with 1970's climate models. In other words, science should be like religion: unchanging dogma.

By that reasoning, modern theories of disease cannot be trusted if they disagree with earlier theories. For example, until the early 1980s, the conventional wisdom on peptic ulcers was that they were caused by over-production of gastric acid, and the standard treatment was a bland diet. But in 1984, research proved that the baterium Helicobacter pylori was the actual cause of most peptic ulcers, and the standard of care changed to treatment with antibiotics.

But by your principle, we can't accept this changed understanding of peptic ulcers because medical science "changed its mind."

 

[theeedude]

Is that the guy who invented those overpriced vacuums?

 

[ivwshane]

It's infuriating to even try to explain the scientific method to someone so deeply committed to ignorance.

According to you, climatology cannot be trusted because contemporary climate models disagree with 1970's climate models. In other words, science should be like religion: unchanging dogma.

By that reasoning, modern theories of disease cannot be trusted if they disagree with earlier theories. For example, until the early 1980s, the conventional wisdom on peptic ulcers was that they were caused by over-production of gastric acid, and the standard treatment was a bland diet. But in 1984, research proved that the baterium Helicobacter pylori was the actual cause of most peptic ulcers, and the standard of care changed to treatment with antibiotics.

But by your principle, we can't accept this changed understanding of peptic ulcers because medical science "changed its mind."

You are a glutton for punishment aren't you? You are attempting to have a conversation with that crazy guy on the corner who talks to himself, rambling on about the end of times.

My advice? Tell him to take his meds and move on. He's a lost cause.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

It's infuriating to even try to explain the scientific method to someone so deeply committed to ignorance.

Don't get angry, just simply go ahead and explain the scientific method then. Explain how the scientific method lends itself handily toward "settled science" and "consensus so don't question".

According to you, climatology cannot be trusted because contemporary climate models disagree with 1970's climate models. In other words, science should be like religion: unchanging dogma.

If past models of "settled science" turned out wrong, then it is valid to mistrust current models as well. Why does this make you angry?

By that reasoning, modern theories of disease cannot be trusted if they disagree with earlier theories. For example, until the early 1980s, the conventional wisdom on peptic ulcers was that they were caused by over-production of gastric acid, and the standard treatment was a bland diet. But in 1984, research proved that the baterium Helicobacter pylori was the actual cause of most peptic ulcers, and the standard of care changed to treatment with antibiotics.

I don't remember hearing about the "settled science" of peptic ulcers in the early 80's. I don't remember the shaming of scientists who explored other causes/reasons for ulcers. In fact, according to your quoted words, merely 4 years later, skeptical scientists corrected themselves. Climate change is infinitely more complex than ulcers, so why would we accept ulcer skeptics but not man-made-global-warming climate skeptics? Especially when the "consensus" keep getting their predictions wrong?

But by your principle, we can't accept this changed understanding of peptic ulcers because medical science "changed its mind."

Medical science was ALLOWED to be skeptical and change its mind. People who question the science behind man made global warming are ridiculed, ostracized, ignored, and marginalized. That's the entire point. Why is it OK to be skeptical about one type of science, but you are a total asshole if you are skeptical about another?

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Dyson isn't a climatologist. Why would you think he's qualified to make pronouncements on climate science?

Logical fallacy: appeal to authority. You sound like another common forum-tard who thinks that people are not qualified to think about and/or know about things unless properly authorized by some properly authoritative body which was chosen and authorized by another authoritative body. If he's wrong, then simply explain why he's wrong. If you're right, it should be immediately obvious if you have any competent level of communication. As authorized by an authoritative body, of course.

 

[ivwshane]

Don't get angry, just simply go ahead and explain the scientific method then. Explain how the scientific method lends itself handily toward "settled science" and "consensus so don't question".



If past models of "settled science" turned out wrong, then it is valid to mistrust current models as well. Why does this make you angry?



I don't remember hearing about the "settled science" of peptic ulcers in the early 80's. I don't remember the shaming of scientists who explored other causes/reasons for ulcers. In fact, according to your quoted words, merely 4 years later, skeptical scientists corrected themselves. Climate change is infinitely more complex than ulcers, so why would we accept ulcer skeptics but not man-made-global-warming climate skeptics? Especially when the "consensus" keep getting their predictions wrong?



Medical science was ALLOWED to change its mind. That's the entire point.

By all means post some peer reviewed studies that show climate change is not only not happening but also a hoax (or either one by itself). Or are you expecting us to prove a negative?

You are right though, science does change, it's just that it doesn't change on whim, changes are based on predictions that are tested to be either true or false. It's why the climate change model is continuously being updated, but the underlying agreement remains the same. We know what's happening, we just can't accurately predict it. Considering what affects the climate an how those effects are variable, I think it's pretty reasonable to understand how no perfect climate change model has been created yet.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

It's infuriating to even try to explain the scientific method to someone so deeply committed to ignorance.

According to you, climatology cannot be trusted because contemporary climate models disagree with 1970's climate models. In other words, science should be like religion: unchanging dogma.

By that reasoning, modern theories of disease cannot be trusted if they disagree with earlier theories. For example, until the early 1980s, the conventional wisdom on peptic ulcers was that they were caused by overproduction of gastric acid, and the standard treatment was a bland diet. But in 1984, research proved that the baterium Helicobacter pylori was the actual cause of most peptic ulcers, and the standard of care changed to treatment with antibiotics.

But by your principle, we can't accept this changed understanding of peptic ulcers because medical science "changed its mind."

I'm sure you can give Dr. Freeman Dyson a proper lesson right?

Anyone remember...."The population BOMB!!" or "Peak Oil" claims? All based on "irrefutable SCIENCE !" that really wasn't science as much as it was a scare tactic and a shot in the dark that some used to push a political agenda as well as a method used to silence critics who questioned this "irrefutable SCIENCE !" and it methodology and/or the political influences which so often taint and pollute any actual scientific debate and conversation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/us/the-unrealized-horrors-of-population-explosion.html

http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-peak-oil-predictions-haven-t-come-true-1411937788

It is one of the reasons why so many scientists are realizing the flaws in modern science today which so often is centered around positive results and discards any and all negative results or questioning of postive results in general because of such bleed over between politics and plain old defensiveness that occurs by those who can shout the loudest or have a vested personal interest (career or otherwise) at stake.

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/13/8591837/how-science-is-broken

http://www.economist.com/news/leade...it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong