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

a reply to: Bluntone22

That's fine. The person asked if the 97% figure was only for climate scientists, and that is what is reported. At least the study doesn't make an appeal to authority fallacy. Though to be honest, I personally don't care about that figure either. Again, I only care about the objective evidence. At most (if it is correct), that study is just making a bandwagon appeal fallacy.

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
a reply to: Phoenix

Changing climate is normal, and caused by changes in solar activity, which is cyclical. Liberals will politicize anything if they think it will benefit them. Watch for boxers vs. briefs to be a political hot topic one of these days.

And how do you know it wasn't conservatives who politicized an accepted scientific concept to protect corporate interests?

a reply to: Sremmos80

I don't need Steven Seagull to help me argue against gun control. I've been doing that far longer than his opinion has been known.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

We wouldn't know if it stands on its own because the original data in many cases is not allowed to be tested by skeptics.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

We wouldn't know if it stands on its own because the original data in many cases is not allowed to be tested by skeptics.

It isn't? How do you know this? I've NEVER seen it written ANYWHERE that the data isn't up for peer review. Post some links, because I think you are just straight up lying here.

a reply to: ketsuko

That's fine, wasn't aimed at you.

See you are jumping on that "data isn't allowed to be tested" bandwagon.

I asked a poster about that in the post you responded to, so want to address that?
Who is not allowing it to be peer reviewed.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
a reply to: Phoenix

Changing climate is normal, and caused by changes in solar activity, which is cyclical. Liberals will politicize anything if they think it will benefit them. Watch for boxers vs. briefs to be a political hot topic one of these days.

And how do you know it wasn't conservatives who politicized an accepted scientific concept to protect corporate interests?

Albert Gore Jr. Ring a bell?

Lame deflection attempt, btw.

a reply to: Phoenix

Freeman Dyson?

Seems like I've heard that name before. Doesn't he make vacuum cleaners or something like that?

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.

Are you a climate scientist?

a reply to: Phoenix

Why is this news to you? Freeman Dyson is well known for his position on global warming. He's also said that an increase in CO2 might be a good thing because increasing CO2 promotes plant growth and that even if it turns out not to be a good thing, we could just genetically engineer trees to soak up additional CO2.

That Dyson is a brilliant man is without question and that makes people hang on his words even when he's talking about a subject that isn't his field of expertise.

Let me point out a comment he made to an interviewer for Yale's e360 in a 2009 interview:

"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."

Quick, run and make another not-news topic like: Freeman Dyson Admits He Doesn't Know Much About 'Technical Facts' Behind Global Warming.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Of course I'm not siding with him. He's wrong. Denying that man is involved with changing the climate is just silly and shows that you haven't looked at the evidence for it. Also Climate Change research has ZERO and I mean ZERO to do with separating anyone from their money. That is just a stupid narrative invented by the right.

"Pollution" is one thing, and needs addressing ... but if you really believe that MAN, that is YOU are responsible for climate change and are a threat to the world. I suggest, you put some stopper in your own holes to stop your CO2 poisoning. And if you have a cow, I suggest you quickly dispose of her ... she's destroying the world with methane and carbon dioxide.

Me? no, I'm going to breathe and feed my cow like never before. You see, I'm under this "illusion", that the warmth of today is about 4 degrees less than it was 800 years ago, and I am so "deluded" that I see greenland ice as support my "illusions". And I have this "insane illusion", that I support with "illusions of natural evidence" that this area I live in was a tropical forrest 4000 years ago. And I am so bloody naive, that I think that dynosaurs lived on this planet some 70 million years ago ... and them being reptilian, I am so stupid to "KNOW" that it wasy WAY HOTTER back then. And you know, I look at "illusions" of ice samples from antarctica and greenland and "imagine" them to show me that the climate change, came long before the CO2 changes came. Throughout the ages.

You see, I'm not as "intelligent" as you .... to "believe" in my own "godliness", as MAN. That merely by "farting", I can change the entire Universe.

a reply to: bjarneorn
Excellent reply bjarneorn, I bet that half of ATS thinks your way although I believe you will be hit by the grammar police shortly.

a reply to: bjarneorn

It is like a what'supwiththat talking point post...
www.newscientist.com... ming/
www.newscientist.com...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

We wouldn't know if it stands on its own because the original data in many cases is not allowed to be tested by skeptics.

It isn't? How do you know this? I've NEVER seen it written ANYWHERE that the data isn't up for peer review. Post some links, because I think you are just straight up lying here.

Basically, raw data and algorithms used were kept confidential for a long time assuming they ever got released. One sure way, one would think, if the results are as iron clad as everyone claims, would be to release the raw data and methodology right away, especially to skeptics whom you need to convince by allowing them to do the work and reproduce the results for themselves.

And if this did happen, it seems the iron clad proof was underwhelming because I see no worldwide conversion of skeptics. Rather, I see more and more falling away from the MMGW orthodoxy all the time.

a reply to: yorkshirelad

It would seem he bases this on the climate models (from 10 years ago ) that are inaccurate. He is entitled to his opinion but he forgets that todays models bear no resemblance to even those from 10 years ago.

I believe you are correct. And that speaks volumes about the validity of climate models. The Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997, 18 years ago. By today's standards the climate models of that time were wildly inaccurate. But, action was taken to address the issues that were predicted by those models. In your own words, those models were inaccurate. But vastly expensive plans were agreed-to based on those flawed predictions.

Now in 2015, we have much more complex models. But only time will tell how accurate they are. Complexity does not imply accuracy.

Every single one of these gets tuned and adjusted as more information is collected.

I remember reading one of Bruce Bueno de Mesquita's books several years ago. One of the things he cautioned against was over-tuning models. By over-tuning the models, the predictions will often diverge from reality even more rapidly.

I accept the evidence for Global Climate Change. I use "accept evidence" rather than "belief" because the latter implies a blind acceptance, while the former implies an informed opinion. However, I do not accept the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is the major forcing component of climate change. In my case, I must fall back on the hidden variable argument. Though it may be considered intellectually lazy to do so, everyday I see new discoveries that may have some effect on the AGW theory. I simply don't accept that humans have enough understanding of the Earth's global ecosystem to accurately make predictions on that scale.

-dex

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: Sremmos80

The climate change alarmist do not want any examination or challenging of data sets. Much of the disagreement is on the source data and modeling.

Just the fact that the alarmist refuse to have their work challenged by normal scientific methods should raise concern. There is nothing wrong with opposing view points asking legitimate questions.

Given how the policies from climate change can negatively impact many industries, I don't see what is so nefarious regarding the industries seeking out truthful answers. if the studies are wrong, point out why the study is wrong. Who funded the study is irrelevant.

That's not true. I don't want data sets because I'm not a scientist and I don't understand them or I understand them as a layman. Me reading data put forth by someone claiming man made global warming is real and then you showing me a graph proving it's wrong does nothing for me, because they cancel each other out.

What I need from you, if you are sure you are right and that the Science proves it. is a list of scientists who believe the way you believe and list of scientific organizations to counter NASA and The American PHysical Society and the American Medical Society and the rest (200 linked from NASA website for starters) . That's what I need.

That's what I'm not seeing. I'm not seeing a large group of scientists and scientific organizations denying man made global warming. As in this thread, I see one guy.

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. They have been saying that to push the global tax fraud scheme in carbon credits. That scam won't work if carbon isn't driving the climate.

This is why the ones clamoring for carbon credit tax schemes continue to drive big engine Suburbans and Tahoe's and personal jets, and Obama uses Air Force 1 to go golfing. They all know that carbon isn't causing climate change. And we all know Al Gore sleeps with all the lights on. Shame he never replaced the burned out bulbs in his head though.

This is also why fossil fuels continue to burn with abandon. No authority cares about cutting emissions. No excuse to keep polluting, but tell that to our world leaders. They sure don't seem to care.

a reply to: ketsuko

That is one person getting denied, is that really saying that no one has peer reviewed it or that it is all locked up?

What it does say is there is confidentiality agreements, and no where does it say why those are bogus or anything.

I don't think you can share other people's work without them wanting to, so is it possible the request just really couldn't be handled?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Phoenix

So if I bring up money earned by the companies it is a strawman? Not sure how that works out.
If he can bring up following the money to discredit the global warming believers then why can't I say the same thing about those that deny it?

That's quite correct, several people have brought this up before..that seems to get lost so often in the English to English translation. It is a two headed Demon to be sure, you can't stop industry bucks being thrown at alternative research, as long as it is done without impropriety, however that = big fail.
Horrendous government funding for research into, wait for it? 'Global warming' (anthropological is missing but should be there all according to..) done without impropriety= big fail.
What I personally think Bryson is trying to say is so much of that money could have been spent properly on the really big, dire issues all around the world, most of them feck all to do with the weather, or where it is weather, that problem has always been there, while almost no one did feck all about it anyway, probably since the Roman Empire.
He also gets to grips with air pollution..the big Elephant in the room, which is something than can be dealt with.
Here, this is something that research about, 'Global warming' and local air pollution gets muddied since air pollution is definitely a man made product isn't it? (no bother there in throwing in the anthropological line) however there is also natural air pollution that can occur, sometime drastically. So, now you get the industry big bucks trying to mitigate the dangers of tiny particulates=big fail, along with the government funded research already done in medical fields that emphasises the dangers of tiny particulates=success, except the bent now is that pollution is part and parcel of 'Global warming' AKA it's all our fault=fail.
This where I get off the boat, a spiel from the like of John Kerry who goes from country to country and makes statements like this, [note] John Kerry, like Al Gore does this quite often on whatever the subject matter was called at the time..all over the world in fact.

John Kerry,
"I have to tell you, this is really not a normal kind of difference of opinion between people. Sometimes you can have a reasonable argument and a reasonable disagreement over an opinion you may have. This is not opinion. This is about facts. This is about science. The science is unequivocal. And those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand."

He may or may not use the scientific fact that an apple dropping off a tree will fall to the ground to demonstrate how unequivocal the science is.
Usually the country's topography makes the rest of the speech...although I am not sure if Kerry has visited Holland yet.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

We wouldn't know if it stands on its own because the original data in many cases is not allowed to be tested by skeptics.

This is just plain false. Data sets are available and used by international teams. The problem is that doing it right and correctly takes substantial technical skill and knowledge.

There was in fact a case where a skeptic did get access to original data sets and did develop the honest technical ability to understand and process it.

Read what his results were:

www.nytimes.com...

Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

The problem is actually that there is no significant 'skeptical' result (I mean skeptical in the current public concept against the entire idea that there is human-caused signficiant global warming) that now stands against scientific scrutiny.