Freeman Dyson, Global Warming Heretic

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]


I agree scrutiny should increase. However, the vast majority of what makes it to mainstream media is not legitimate scrutiny.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair the vast majority of the science that makes it through the mainstream media is also not under legitimate scrutiny.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I agree scrutiny should increase. However, the vast majority of what makes it to mainstream media is not legitimate scrutiny.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair the vast majority of the science that makes it through the mainstream media is also not under legitimate scrutiny.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will agree with that as well. A few prime examples are nuclear winter, global cooling and Meryl Streep's favorite chemical Alar. The left wing media went bonkers over these theories in the 70's while totally ignoring assessment reports by the National Academies. Their misconduct back then has come around to bite the mainstream scientists in the rear now.

As for the people that correctly scrutinize climate change fear mongers the BBC is the only one that I've seen do a decent job.

[Moseley]

You all can argue all you want. All I know, is that I have been able to get a darker tan, every year since 2000, laying out in my backyard the same amount of time every year.
Furthermore, after last year's heat wave, I did not renew my membership with my golf club this year, as last year was too hot for me to be able to benefit sufficiently from being a member.
Add to that, the fact that the Arctic Circle is smaller this year, than it has ever been in recorded history and the proof is 3 prong, making it undeniable.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
You all can argue all you want. All I know, is that I have been able to get a darker tan, every year since 2000, laying out in my backyard the same amount of time every year.
Furthermore, after last year's heat wave, I did not renew my membership with my golf club this year, as last year was too hot for me to be able to benefit sufficiently from being a member.
Add to that, the fact that the Arctic Circle is smaller this year, than it has ever been in recorded history and the proof is 3 prong, making it undeniable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your sample size is too small.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'm wrong but as the politicians in the U.S. get closer to actually implementing policy regarding man made global warming, the scrutiny the models are receiving seems to have increased a great deal. Just my perception could be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

No you are correct. NYT's Andy Revkin talked about how deniers typically get worse and worse as the odds turns against them. The closer they are to defeat the larger the lies will become.

[/ QUOTE ]


Scrutiny == deanial and lying??? I don't think so.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'm wrong but as the politicians in the U.S. get closer to actually implementing policy regarding man made global warming, the scrutiny the models are receiving seems to have increased a great deal. Just my perception could be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

No you are correct. NYT's Andy Revkin talked about how deniers typically get worse and worse as the odds turns against them. The closer they are to defeat the larger the lies will become.

[/ QUOTE ]


Scrutiny == deanial and lying??? I don't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say scrutiny is denial and lying. However, once the bar of scrutiny has been raised to the point of joint statements from the National Academies of dozens of nations and every major scientific organization with relevant expertise then it's going to be extremely difficult to increase the amount of legitimate and constructive scrutiny. This level of scrutiny has been going on for almost a decade. There are plenty of dirty denial tricks left to play though. Stephen McIntyre has been hotly debating this topic for over a decade. His presence in the arena is nothing new. Would you mind detailing what increase in scrutiny you were talking about?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats because its not really a science paper, it is a philosophical discussion about not being a lemming and following others off the cliff based on insufficient information.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[No you are correct. Religioius cults get more and desperate as the odds turns against them. The closer they are to defeat the larger the lies will become.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'm wrong but as the politicians in the U.S. get closer to actually implementing policy regarding man made global warming, the scrutiny the models are receiving seems to have increased a great deal. Just my perception could be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

No you are correct. NYT's Andy Revkin talked about how deniers typically get worse and worse as the odds turns against them. The closer they are to defeat the larger the lies will become.

[/ QUOTE ]


Scrutiny == deanial and lying??? I don't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say scrutiny is denial and lying. However, once the bar of scrutiny has been raised to the point of joint statements from the National Academies of dozens of nations and every major scientific organization with relevant expertise then it's going to be extremely difficult to increase the amount of legitimate and constructive scrutiny. This level of scrutiny has been going on for almost a decade. There are plenty of dirty denial tricks left to play though. Stephen McIntyre has been hotly debating this topic for over a decade. His presence in the arena is nothing new. Would you mind detailing what increase in scrutiny you were talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

I used the word scrutiny you replied with a post about denial and lying not mentioning the word scrutiny once. What else are people to think other than you make the conclusion that the scrutiny is an attempt to deny and lie. Just read what you wrote.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I used the word scrutiny you replied with a post about denial and lying not mentioning the word scrutiny once. What else are people to think other than you make the conclusion that the scrutiny is an attempt to deny and lie. Just read what you wrote.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, you are right. I should have been more clear. Still, as far as legit scrutiny goes who has entered the debate that wasn't going full steam in 2001? What scrutiny were you talking about?