Top Physicist Freeman Dyson: Obama Has Picked The ‘Wrong Side’ On Climate Change

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Why are we believing a physicist's opinion on a field of science that he doesn't do research in? Oh wait, it's because it confirms people's confirmation biases. Just like always when it comes to flimsy evidence like this.

This thread needs a big "APPEAL TO AUTHORITY FALLACY" stamped on it.

Albedo modulation is what drives the climate. CO2 only contributes a little bit. 5 to 10 times less than what climate change scammers have been saying.

Where's the scientific evidence that CO2 contributes only a little bit compared to mainstream estimates--and I'm talking about now, not millions of years ago.

Obviously if albedo changes significantly, climate will change significantly.

And in different ways than has been observed.

How do you get albedo change to affect northern latitudes more than tropics? How do you get albedo change to affect winter more than summer, and night time more than day time?

How do you get albedo change to result in stratospheric cooling?

Changes in greenhouse cases do those things.

Albedo change, e.g. via clouds and ice is a *response* which changes the climate sensitivity, and these are important parts of climate study by scientists and have been for decades.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Phoenix

"My 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. I think that’s what upsets me."

Professor Dyson, going into some field where you DO know techncial facts, if hypothetically people objected to nuclear physics because they didn't believe in atoms and thought that spin was homosexual propaganda, and as a result didn't believe that thermonuclear weapons were all that dangerous or ICBM's were naturally occurring---might you also get quite pissed off and intolerant of incessant ignorant criticisms?

Does he have any data to prove to the contrary of the massive volume of available data supporting man made climate change?


Again! Every thread here. No data. No proof. I beg someone to humble me. I am willing to admit anyone is right because I only seek truth. No data. No truth. Simple as that.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You could try googling government funding for climate change research.

a reply to: StanFL

You can try googling how much money is in oil and coal and concrete.

That is the system that is already in place not speculated dollar amounts.

In Dyson's case, we have to understand he did do some work tied to the climate. Here's an example:
e360.yale.edu - Freeman Dyson Takes on
the Climate Establishment...

I think the difference between me and most of the experts is that I think I have a much wider view of the whole subject. I was involved in climate studies seriously about 30 years ago. That’s how I got interested. There was an outfit called the Institute for Energy Analysis at Oak Ridge. I visited Oak Ridge many times, and worked with those people, and I thought they were excellent. And the beauty of it was that it was multi-disciplinary. There were experts not just on hydrodynamics of the atmosphere, which of course is important, but also experts on vegetation, on soil, on trees, and so it was sort of half biological and half physics. And I felt that was a very good balance.

And there you got a very strong feeling for how uncertain the whole business is, that the five reservoirs of carbon all are in close contact — the atmosphere, the upper level of the ocean, the land vegetation, the topsoil, and the fossil fuels. They are all about equal in size. They all interact with each other strongly. So you can’t understand any of them unless you understand all of them. Essentially that was the conclusion. It’s a problem of very complicated ecology, and to isolate the atmosphere and the ocean just as a hydrodynamics problem makes no sense.

After reading some, I think I understand his skepticism. It's here:
1) He says models in the past failed to accurately predict what happened
2) Climate change research focuses too much on hydrodynamics models - the "political" split occurred some 30 year sago which is at least one of the reasons Dyson says he left the field of research bitterly
3) Anything that looks bad is reported, and anything that looks good is not reported - mostly because the scientific focus is on something else and since it can't be fully quantified (its affect) it's dismissed
4) Climate change researchers, like all professionals, play up the dangers associated with their work because of vested interest - he gives the example of military experts who overplay threats
5) People have always created apocalyptic prophecies and feelings - it's somehow a part of our nature to exaggerate our fears
6) He's too old to be an expert and to do solid research, yet his skepticism will remain because of his past experiences

Now the question is, are those things in the list true? I don't have time to prove, I just wanted to produce a list.

My opinion is we definitely need to do something, more than we're doing now, but we shouldn't panic. We shouldn't become enviro-nazis. Moreso, a lot of people buy into the climate change science not because they actually have been able to mentally comprehend all of it and cover all of the evidence, but because they're driven by faith. Faith!!???? Yes, the fact is most of us aren't experts and will never be experts, so we must have faith to even begin to say what an expert would say. I--myself--cannot say humans certainly caused AGW and it's also catastrophic. I can't say it without faith. I struggle to believe anyone can without being an expert. Those who do and aren't experts: I fear them. Why? Because it's faith. It's usually tied to something else, like party or idealogy or religion or god-knows-what. It can be corrupted and used by those in power.

So here's hte deal, if a scientist wants to go 70mph I'll say 45mph or 50mph, even if I want to go 20mph. Naturally, I can't say 70mph because I don't have faith like that. Yet THEY'RE experts, so I must give them respect. This is especially important with climate change because it affects everybody and if true has potentially dire consequences for all the world.

Political motivation to disprove climate change without presentation of data? I didn't dig too deep on this one, but the title is loaded with potential distortions of truth.

Real scientists only observe, experiment, produce data from those experiments, analyze, then form a conclusion. Can't trust this guy.

a reply to: jonnywhite

Oh wow. What he says is ridiculous. Genetic engineering? Excess CO2 actually good for plants and in this scenario he has implications that this would be good for the planet as a whole without consideration that the planet is highly dynamic? He just says stuff. Pretty soon I'll have my PhD and then I'll be able to say random stuff so people can follow me and say I'm the expert. Love it. Power. The ultimate false sense of security.

Definitely can't trust this guy.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: StanFL

You can try googling how much money is in oil and coal and concrete.

That is the system that is already in place not speculated dollar amounts.

Funny how that "system" in place is the one that the poor folks use,
and the ever shrinking middle class, and not just in the U.S.

And the stiffs still claim that climate change legislation is to help the
poor and third world countries.

a reply to: burntheships

Everyone uses it, not just the poor and middle class. I would say they use it the least since IMO.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Reading 2nd link might refute your same ole, same ole confirmation bias comment used in thread after thread.

Nope. He's still a physicist talking about a scientific field outside of his discipline. Still an appeal to authority fallacy. Not to mention, he presents no evidence. He just makes a bunch of statements. "The models are wrong and getting worse." That isn't evidence, that's his opinion. The only people who can consider that to be evidence are people with a confirmation bias.

I would like to first state that I ciuld have picked several of your comments to reply to from the first page alone.

Secondly I would like to say that I am convinced that you have a very unhealthy infatuation with climate change, and it is starting to show up in more and more of your posts.

Third and lastly, I would like to ask you if you have even read this guys biography information?

Here let me introduce you to a little snippet of his background, courtesy of Google and good old Wiki.

Around 1979, Dyson worked with the Institute for Energy Analysis on climate studies. This group, under the direction of Alvin Weinberg, pioneered multidisciplinary climate studies, including a strong biology group. Also during the 1970s, he worked on climate studies conducted by the JASON defense advisory group.[18]

So let me get this straight?

This genius, litterally, has been schooled his whole life in many fields, INCLUDING CLIMATE STUDIES, and has devoted his entire life into the learning field, does not know what he is talking about????

Are you serious? If anyone or ten thousand scientists on the whole cclimate doom side had half of the credentials this man has, you would be foaming at the mouth over his intellectual abilities to understand climate and the global cycles.

But since he is saying exactly the opposite of what you repeatedly spew over and over and over, like everyone else is mentally challenged, and you and your "glorious info intellectuals" are the only correct individuals on this planet....it is just completely absurd.

I mean come on man, what do you want? Jesus to come down from a storm cloud caused by condensate from a super heated ocean after all of the arctic ice melts and tell you that you are right?

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy
Does he have any data to prove to the contrary of the massive volume of available data supporting man made climate change?


Again! Every thread here. No data. No proof. I beg someone to humble me. I am willing to admit anyone is right because I only seek truth. No data. No truth. Simple as that.

Which 'massive volume of available data'? The volume they won't share for their opponents to test (and those opponents must sue for), the volume that is extrapolated and/or 'fixed', or the volume that has been put into computer models and doesn't work?

Decisions, decisions.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Phoenix

Why can't we follow the money about the denial of climate change?

We are still talking trillions of dollars.
Plenty of 'top' scientist agree that it is a problem, why does this guy top all of them?

Problem Reaction Solution...you can't follow it because the people hiding actual problems are the same ones paying these scientists to "TELL" us how everything is in this world.

It is incredible to watch the naïve nature of those as yourselves that have clear scapegoats.

So reading through this thread, the glaringly obvious is still glaringly obvious: "climate change" is a political, not scientific argument.

The climate is (as has been demonstrated by the failure of the models referenced by Dyson) irreducibly complex. At least for now. If you are a climate change proponent, then you cannot ignore the simple fact that, despite all the computing, mathematical, and brain power put into data collection and analysis, we are still left with "scientists" standing, palms up, saying, "I dunno" when the model fails any statistically relevant test of accuracy.

Its political. 100%. Because other than the expensive equipment being deployed, there really isn't much in the way of science. Sure, its "sciencey". It has all the bleeping and flashing lights....but it isn't science. Its a grander version of what goes on in the Mars Rocks discussions, where people do all sorts of drawing on pictures and highlighting pareidolia....but its still just rocks.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

What about the 40% rise if CO2 that we have observed? This correlates with the industrial age and humans dumping CO2 into the atmosphere as a result of burning fossil fuels.

Because of CO2's radiative forcing action, we can deduce it contributes to a warming effect.

That is science and science knows no politics.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

What about the 40% rise if CO2 that we have observed? This correlates with the industrial age and humans dumping CO2 into the atmosphere as a result of burning fossil fuels.

Hows that for a predictive model. It "predicts" what was going to happen over 100 years ago.

And then "scientists" are extrapolating that to...????

Because of CO2's radiative forcing action, we can deduce it contributes to a warming effect.

That is science and science knows no politics.

Please...deduce away. But if the deductions are to be relevant, the model will have to be predictive outside of the rear view mirror.

a reply to: Sremmos80

After all that, all you can offer is "IMO"?

Please provide citations to show how climate change legislation
and its solution aka as carbon credits are going to help the poor,
who will be paying more for energy.

Also, while your at it please provide a scientific analysis or source that shows
how climate change legislation and its subsequent energy replacement system
( away from the in place system) will be safeguarding the planet from any
further "anthropogenic climate change".

a reply to: burntheships

I am not for carbon credits per sey, at least not as it has been presented.

Will you accept anything that says less CO2 getting released is good, don't want to waste my time if you are just going to disagree with that.

a reply to: Sremmos80

and thats the thing: no can (or should) argue that burning fossil fuels is good for the planet. Or that eating fish with mercury is healthy. Or that we won't potentially end up with a rampage shooting problem if we have millions of pills put into our sewer (and thus, water) system over a period of 50 to 60 years. Seriously....it was SOP at most hospitals to crush and flush rejected, expired, or otherwise unwanted medications.

None of it is good. But the moment those wolves in DC start licking their chops.....

.....unless anyone actually believes that anyone in DC has actually done anything for the American people without getting something (big) in return. Sure...their altruists. Every last one of them sing in the church's choir.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I more or less agree to most of what you said. Not so sure what you are going on about the pills but I am sure there is a legit story behind what you are saying about flushing them. I for one would have been unaware that is SOP if true.

I think there are scientist out there that don't care about he politics one bit on this issue and even though they are not 100% correct, which isn't really a staple of science, doesn't mean they are wrong.(This is about your post a little bit above)


And as it stands today, there is little to no one I do trust in DC, but I think that is a line of thought that at some point we need to break. Which obviously is a whole other issue, but until we do we won't ever be able to come together and get stuff done.