Freeman Dyson, Global Warming Heretic

[Leaky Eye]

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dyso...f07_index.html

[Leaky Eye]

Cliff Notes: Scientific dogma sucks. Carbon levels may be manageable without cutting production. Sea levels may not rise due to warming. A warmer earth is better. Humanism FTW.

[Phil153]

1. He looks like kind of silly
2. [ QUOTE ]
In the modern world, science and society often interact in a perverse way. We live in a technological society, and technology causes political problems. The politicians and the public expect science to provide answers to the problems. Scientific experts are paid and encouraged to provide answers. The public does not have much use for a scientist who says, “Sorry, but we don’t know”. The public prefers to listen to scientists who give confident answers to questions and make confident predictions of what will happen as a result of human activities. So it happens that the experts who talk publicly about politically contentious questions tend to speak more clearly than they think.

[/ QUOTE ]
Anyone who's actually read the IPCC report (which is very few of the deniers), will realize that it's a non contentious document based on error ranges and levels of confidence. There are no: "this is what's going to happen". There are terms like "likely", "more likely than not", "very likely", representing percentage ranges of possible outcomes. There is a quantification of level of understanding with associated (very generous) error intervals. It is within these bounds that the comments about likely warming and likely causes are made, and I find them rigorous.

So this clown is just doing some political spin.

And what's up with this statment?
[ QUOTE ]
First, if the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is allowed to continue, shall we arrive at a climate similar to the climate of six thousand years ago when the Sahara was wet? Second, if we could choose between the climate of today with a dry Sahara and the climate of six thousand years ago with a wet Sahara, should we prefer the climate of today? My second heresy answers yes to the first question and no to the second.

[/ QUOTE ]
In the first he seems to be agreeing that carbon dioxide will warm the atmosphere. In the second, he presents a false scenario - the indications are that global warming will intensify desertification in the Saharan region, NOT make it wet. So it's an irrelevant choice.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
and I find them rigorous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh? They have not even been able to eliminate variable energy output from the sun or other natural causes and yet you find their conclusions....'rigorous'. Those nitwits can't explain the Ice Age nor the Medievil Warmimg Period. These nitwits can't even measure 'global' temperature correctly.....and yet you find their conclusions....'rigorous'. My....you have low standards....
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/200...ttest_yea.html

You swallow the Man-Causes Global Warming hype like candy without any understanding of the VAST-VAST amount of data necessary to even make a half-assed analysis. The Man-Causes-Global-Warming (MCGW) Cult has less than 1% of the needed data and they even manage to botch this data up (temp readings, Michael Mann's discredited hockey stick graph, etc....).

Here is a REAL scientist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre
In addition to busting Michael Mann, McIntyre discovered these nitwits calculated the global temps incorrectly....

[L'ennemi.]

[ QUOTE ]
Stephen McIntyre is a former mining executive

[/ QUOTE ]
lol.

[wacki]

Felix_Nietsche, since you are so much smarter than the guys at NASA can you tell me what caused the error in the temperature graph and who was at fault? The answer is freely available on the internet.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
1. He looks like kind of silly
2. [ QUOTE ]
In the modern world, science and society often interact in a perverse way. We live in a technological society, and technology causes political problems. The politicians and the public expect science to provide answers to the problems. Scientific experts are paid and encouraged to provide answers. The public does not have much use for a scientist who says, “Sorry, but we don’t know”. The public prefers to listen to scientists who give confident answers to questions and make confident predictions of what will happen as a result of human activities. So it happens that the experts who talk publicly about politically contentious questions tend to speak more clearly than they think.

[/ QUOTE ]
Anyone who's actually read the IPCC report (which is very few of the deniers), will realize that it's a non contentious document based on error ranges and levels of confidence. There are no: "this is what's going to happen". There are terms like "likely", "more likely than not", "very likely", representing percentage ranges of possible outcomes. There is a quantification of level of understanding with associated (very generous) error intervals. It is within these bounds that the comments about likely warming and likely causes are made, and I find them rigorous.

So this clown is just doing some political spin.

And what's up with this statment?
[ QUOTE ]
First, if the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is allowed to continue, shall we arrive at a climate similar to the climate of six thousand years ago when the Sahara was wet? Second, if we could choose between the climate of today with a dry Sahara and the climate of six thousand years ago with a wet Sahara, should we prefer the climate of today? My second heresy answers yes to the first question and no to the second.

[/ QUOTE ]
In the first he seems to be agreeing that carbon dioxide will warm the atmosphere. In the second, he presents a false scenario - the indications are that global warming will intensify desertification in the Saharan region, NOT make it wet. So it's an irrelevant choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, this "clown" is a genius of the first order.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL, this "clown" is a genius of the first order.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then why is he making false statements and giving incorrect dichotomies? Perhaps he's trying to sell a book?

He makes a few good points, however in general I think it's obvious that screwing with the climate system is a bad idea.

Felix:
[ QUOTE ]
They have not even been able to eliminate variable energy output from the sun

[/ QUOTE ]
I debunked this last time and you didn't respond. Here it is again. Stop listening to your kook movies that are feeding you lies. The sun is NOT the cause of recent global warming.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
Felix_Nietsche, since you are so much smarter than the guys at NASA can you tell me what caused the error in the temperature graph and who was at fault?

[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you for your confidence. I would not say I'm smarter than ALL of the guys at NASA. Perhaps I am only smarter than 99.85% of them. As for fault, it is NASA's fault.

The GREAT Stephen McIntyre 'schooled' the so-called experts at NASA even without having their complete methodology which they refused to fully release. Forcing them to change their fraudulent data making 1934 the hottest year rather than 1998. It is a sad day for science when an amateur mathematician can outwit people in their own field....

But perhaps I give McIntyre too much credit. Outwitting climatologists who claim man-causes global warming it not that hard to do.....

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stephen McIntyre is a former mining executive

[/ QUOTE ]
lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is pretty sad when an amateur mathemtician can outwit all the so-called experts at NASA and force them to revise their temperature data. Also McIntyre has the honor of exposing that fraud Micahel Mann and his fake hockey stick graph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael...28scientist%29

So lets check the score:
Amateur Mathematicians: 2
Climatologists: 0

McIntyre has a shutout going for him!!!!
So what can we learn from this? Having a PhD in climatology is equivalent to having a high school degree....