World's top physicist and "climate change"

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

unokitty

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2012
3,346
1
0
H.-L.-Mencken-Quotes-2.jpg


War in Viet Nam
War on Poverty
War on Drugs
War in the Middle East
War on Climate Change Deniers

No sympathy for the politicians?

After all, they lost the war in Viet Nam, the war on poverty, and the war on drugs. And after 14 years, the public is losing interest in the politician's war in the Middle-East.

Obviously, the politician's need a new war. Why not a war on climate change deniers?

Uno
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,057
55,549
136
H.-L.-Mencken-Quotes-2.jpg


War in Viet Nam
War on Poverty
War on Drugs
War in the Middle East
War on Climate Change Deniers

No sympathy for the politicians?

After all, they lost the war in Viet Nam, the war on poverty, and the war on drugs. And after 14 years, the public is losing interest in the politician's war in the Middle-East.

Obviously, the politician's need a new war. Why not a war on climate change deniers?

Uno

Yes, by all means let's quote the Nazi sympathizer as to what is and is not a real threat to the populace, lol.

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-12-05/news/mn-198_1_h-l-mencken
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
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.
No, moron. An OP that quotes a world-famous non-climatologist making pronouncements on climatology is "appealing to authority."

Furthermore, I don't need to point out the errors in his climatology pronouncements. I myself am not a climatologists, so why would I think I'm qualified to debate the science itself? All I need to do is accurately point out that Dyson isn't a climatologist, and then we can all happily ignore everything he says about climatology.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Yes, by all means let's quote the Nazi sympathizer as to what is and is not a real threat to the populace, lol.

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-12-05/news/mn-198_1_h-l-mencken
Yet he was one of the first journalists to denounce the persecution of the Jews in Germany at the time. Everything is all black and white to you it seems. Now that you've set this precedent...I must assume that it's now acceptable for all to broadly discredit any source you use if they're able to find an objectionable character flaw. Or is there some "nuance" I'm missing here?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,057
55,549
136
Yet he was one of the first journalists to denounce the persecution of the Jews in Germany at the time. Everything is all black and white to you it seems. Now that you've set this precedent...I must assume that it's now acceptable for all to broadly discredit any source you use if they're able to find an objectionable character flaw. Or is there some "nuance" I'm missing here?

Uhmm, this is pretty simple: someone who thought the Nazis weren't a threat probably isn't a great source to quote about how all the threats presented to the public are imaginary. It has nothing to do with whether he had character flaws or whatever else, he was just clearly and catastrophically wrong about probably the largest threat to the public of his time.

So no, absolutely no nuance here. Just the plain as day, slap in the face absurdity of quoting him about the issue.
 

K7SN

Senior member
Jun 21, 2015
353
0
0
did you actually read the article you quoted?

http://edge.org/conversation/heretical-thoughts-about-science-and-society

it's pretty good.

Yes it is a good read but since you are reading outside the OP as others do then you know thraashman is correct - your comment to thraashman is therefore faulty and you sir are without merit in this discussion; Below is a read for you!

Wikipedia said:
Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that "[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."[55] However, he believes that existing simulation models of climate fail to account for some important factors, and hence the results will contain too much error to reliably predict future trends:
The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world we live in ...[55]
and, in 2009:
What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what's observed and what's predicted have become much stronger. It's clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn't so clear 10 years ago.[56]
He is among signatories of a letter to the UN criticizing the IPCC[57][58] and has also argued against ostracizing scientists whose views depart from the acknowledged mainstream of scientific opinion on climate change, stating that "heretics" have historically been an important force in driving scientific progress. "[H]eretics who question the dogmas are needed ... I am proud to be a heretic. The world always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies."[55]
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."[59]
In 2008, he endorsed the now common usage of "global warming" as synonymous with global anthropogenic climate change, referring to "measurements that transformed global warming from a vague theoretical speculation into a precise observational science."[60]
He has, however, argued that political efforts to reduce the causes of climate change distract from other global problems that should take priority:
I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans.[61]
Since originally taking interest in climate studies in the 1970s, Dyson has suggested that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere could be controlled by planting fast-growing trees. He calculates that it would take a trillion trees to remove all carbon from the atmosphere.[62][63]
In a 2014 interview, he said that "What I’m convinced of is that we don’t understand climate ... It will take a lot of very hard work before that question is settled." [2]
 

master_shake_

Diamond Member
May 22, 2012
6,425
292
121
Yes it is a good read but since you are reading outside the OP as others do then you know thraashman is correct - your comment to thraashman is therefore faulty and you sir are without merit in this discussion; Below is a read for you!

not sure if serious.

if serious then climate change is srs bsns

if not then i almost fell for it.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Uhmm, this is pretty simple: someone who thought the Nazis weren't a threat probably isn't a great source to quote about how all the threats presented to the public are imaginary. It has nothing to do with whether he had character flaws or whatever else, he was just clearly and catastrophically wrong about probably the largest threat to the public of his time.

So no, absolutely no nuance here. Just the plain as day, slap in the face absurdity of quoting him about the issue.
Really? A hell of a lot of people thought that the Nazis weren't a threat.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Really? A hell of a lot of people thought that the Nazis weren't a threat.

A hell of a lot of people have tens of thousands in credit card debt; that doesn't mean that you'd go to them for financial advice. If someone said the Nazis weren't a threat and they ended up being one of the worst threats in human history, that person doesn't have a very good track record of identifying threats. That doesn't, in and of itself, make them stupid or what have you, but it does mean that you can probably discount their opinion on what constitutes a serious threat because they have a track record of being horribly wrong in that regard.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
A hell of a lot of people have tens of thousands in credit card debt; that doesn't mean that you'd go to them for financial advice. If someone said the Nazis weren't a threat and they ended up being one of the worst threats in human history, that person doesn't have a very good track record of identifying threats. That doesn't, in and of itself, make them stupid or what have you, but it does mean that you can probably discount their opinion on what constitutes a serious threat because they have a track record of being horribly wrong in that regard.
Hindsight is 20/20. History...you should read it.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,842
4,785
146
he's got a lot of awards and honours but no nobel prize.

al gore has a nobel prize.

his argument is invalid.

:biggrin:

I'm sure you're just joking, but the Nobel Prize REALLY threw itself away when it gave Obama one.

"Why did you award Obama?"

"You know, because of... all the stuff... he did..." :awe:
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,092
136
Shame on me for this; but I honestly keep being surprised to find there are people out there who still do not believe in man's effect on very real climate change. Mind boggling.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
22,339
6,486
136
Shame on me for this; but I honestly keep being surprised to find there are people out there who still do not believe in man's effect on very real climate change. Mind boggling.

I'm just as surprised at the climate data being constantly adjusted to fit the model. I'm also baffled as to what the believers actually want. The discussion is always about forcing "deniers" (a concept right out of propaganda 101) to admit that climate change is a near term man made disaster. The argument is superfluous, completely unnecessary because everyone knows oil is a finite resource. We will run out, and when we do is when the shit really hits the fan. Solving either problem solves both, so tackle the one that doesn't require a dog and pony show to sell, and questionable science to prove.
 

master_shake_

Diamond Member
May 22, 2012
6,425
292
121
I'm just as surprised at the climate data being constantly adjusted to fit the model. I'm also baffled as to what the believers actually want. The discussion is always about forcing "deniers" (a concept right out of propaganda 101) to admit that climate change is a near term man made disaster. The argument is superfluous, completely unnecessary because everyone knows oil is a finite resource. We will run out, and when we do is when the shit really hits the fan. Solving either problem solves both, so tackle the one that doesn't require a dog and pony show to sell, and questionable science to prove.

it's easier to point fingers at people who use carbon based fuels rather than come up with an alternative.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,057
55,549
136
I'm just as surprised at the climate data being constantly adjusted to fit the model. I'm also baffled as to what the believers actually want. The discussion is always about forcing "deniers" (a concept right out of propaganda 101) to admit that climate change is a near term man made disaster. The argument is superfluous, completely unnecessary because everyone knows oil is a finite resource. We will run out, and when we do is when the shit really hits the fan. Solving either problem solves both, so tackle the one that doesn't require a dog and pony show to sell, and questionable science to prove.

Because if we actually used all the oil in the ground the total effect on the climate would be absolutely catastrophic. We have to solve the problem long, long before then.

As for what people want deniers to believe, we would just like people to accept overwhelming science and act accordingly. You wouldn't think that would be a lot to ask, but apparently it is.