Freeman Dyson, Global Warming Heretic

[Max Raker]

[ QUOTE ]
You won't get nifty govt research grants but you will sleep better at night......

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think there are any people that will benefit financially by denying that man causes global warming?

[Max Raker]

Interesting that Dyson starts his article with a philosophical argument. This is never a good sign in a science paper. I am a pretty big fan of Dyson or atleast his work in QED. Since then he has spent alot of time on space colonization and things outside of the main stream so I guess his view on this is not that surprising.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think there are any people that will benefit financially by denying that man causes global warming?

[/ QUOTE ]
People don't work for free.....
People of both sides of this issue get paid.
However, there is more money in supporting man-cause global warming theories. The figure I heard was in the ballpark of 20 billion versus 30 million. With the 20 billion being the money paid by disciples of the MCGW (Man-Causes-Global-Warming) cult and 30 million being paid by private industry. Private industry is in the business of providing goods and services and they will NEVER be able to provide the research money the govt can. The govt has deeper pockets... So there is more money to be made by towing the party line that man causes global warming... The research money that govt provides can be used like a club to reward and punish people....

It is hypocrtically for the MCGW Cult to attack doubters for being paid when they are getting paid as well.... They are forced to do so because science is not on their side.....

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Hell, a single volcano explosion can cause HUGE changes in the weather with CONSTANT solar output.

[/ QUOTE ]
We're not talking about volcanoes - we're talking about the specific claim that you and others made that the sun is the cause of recent warming. There is zero evidence for that claim, and on the face of it appears contradicted by the data.

[ QUOTE ]
then you will realize you can NOT make such claims about the relationship of solar variation and warming based on a miniscule 30 years of data

[/ QUOTE ]
When there's a well understood mechanism, we generally can. You don't get simpler than the amount of insolation, and the number of sunspots/solar flares. None of these items appear to correlate with any temperature readings that we have.

BTW, you mention education and understanding of statistics. I wonder what the ratio of (science/math eduction) : (global warming denier/proponent) is. I'd bet that on this board, it's highly in favor of the proponents. If you want to pull that card, I think you're doing yourself a disservice.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
We're not talking about volcanoes - we're talking about the specific claim that you and others made that the sun is the cause of recent warming.

[/ QUOTE ]
How can we have a rational discussion when you falsely state my position?
My position is the MCGW cult can NOT eliminate variable solar output as a cause behind global climate changes.... If you find a person that claims this with only 30 years of data...then argue with them...not me....

[ QUOTE ]
When there's a well understood mechanism, we generally can. You don't get simpler than the amount of insolation, and the number of sunspots/solar flares. None of these items appear to correlate with any temperature readings that we have.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is a waste of time to base any conclusions for or against based on 30 years of solar data.
Waste your time if you like, but I am educated enough not to make the same mistake....

[ QUOTE ]
None of these items appear to correlate with any temperature readings that we have.

[/ QUOTE ]
<Sigh> You are *STILL* trying to make conclusions on 30 years of solar data? It is OK to say, "I don't know".

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, you mention education and understanding of statistics. I wonder what the ratio of (science/math eduction) : (global warming denier/proponent) is. I'd bet that on this board, it's highly in favor of the proponents. If you want to pull that card, I think you're doing yourself a disservice.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who knows.... Taking a class is one thing... Applying the knowledge is completely different. As I pointed out, Stephen McIntyre humilated the so-called 'experts' at NASA and that fraud Michael Mann. Like I said before:

Amateur mathematicians: 2
PhD Climatologists: 0

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a degree in physics/math and have taken two semesters of meteorology, with time spent in a meteorology station. I don't claim to be an expert, but I understand the principles and arguments well enough.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you could answer this question for me, then.....

If there is a body of water and the air temperature goes up, what happens to the rate of evaporation of that body of water?

[Phil153]

It increases of course.

[Exsubmariner]

Ok, it increases.

That would mean that the overall moisture content of the air increases, then?

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, it increases.

That would mean that the overall moisture content of the air increases, then?

[/ QUOTE ]

perhaps you should just get to your point.

[Exsubmariner]

I want to be absolutely certain that the logic by which I get there is agreed on.