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

TOP PHYSICIST!??? I AM SOLD!!

Im gonna go burn and destroy things cause its natural .

Info: Separating Man-Made Climate Change and Climate Change is just as same as a religious fanatic calling Evolution "Micro-Evolution" and "Macro-Evolution".. both are real and both are part of the same thing.

a reply to: amazing

Absolutely! But since they have the money, the ability to take their money is also following the money. I can't prove that my opinion is right...it is simply my opinion and my belief. I think climate change is a fact, but man-made climate change is just another tactic to tax businesses and the people by the government. That is basically all they do...tax and grow and tax some more.

I find it difficult to believe that an institution that is always looking for more money to support and grow itself isn't using this to do just that...yet again. I don't trust liars who seem to always lie to fill their pockets and support themselves on the money of the people.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: amazing

I'm sure some do. I don't. As far as I know, ATS is for the expression of beliefs, ideas and discussion. I don't think there is room for individuals who tell others to shut up or go away. Do you?

You are correct. I don't tell people to shut up either. I never do that, and I never overtly insult anyone by calling them stupid or anything like that. I just took issue with your (my perceived notion) statement that it's mainly liberals that tell others to shut up. You know that's not true and a gross generalization.

I didn't mean to imply that it is JUST the liberals who are money grabbing, power hungry, etc. But on THIS topic...it is the left pushing it's acceptance including their "minions" even here on ATS that DO call stupid and ignorant of anyone who doesn't agree. I don't mean you...I don't know you. But others here that are posting...yes.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: Phoenix
As an adherent to the thought that Climate Change is a made up problem used in an attempt to gain monetary benefit and control of the populace to government authority - what Freeman Dyson has said is music to my ears.

I am wondering how the Climate Change believers are going to impeach Freeman Dyson's take on this subject as they have with everyone else holding a contrary view.

Oh jesus I'm on my back legs in the air I think I'm going to wet myself......why?

Well, one day you skeptics will learn how to read properly instead of cherry picking and coming to the wrong conclusion !

Dyson agrees that there is anthropogenic global warming due to the increased carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels

Go on check it out!

What he disagrees with and hence the "wrong side" bit is that he believes it is not as bad as it is made out and that there are other things that should be concentrated on. 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. What he also forgets is that there isn't one model but lots of models written by different groups world wide. Every single one of these gets tuned and adjusted as more information is collected. Every single one shows the climate is getting worse. In fact they are converging !!!!! DUH

Also remember just because he's a nuclear physicist does not make him an expert as a climatologist. He has as much ability as anyone else with an education. Like mine for example, an honours degree in Electronics and an IQ of 136 but I would never tell anyone else who is an expert their field that they are wrong. That's ignorant and dumb. I take a consensus of opinion from the experts and in this case 96% of climate experts say we are the cause and it's going to get much worse.

This post should have ended this thread. Man made climate change denial is just emberassing and it hurts the image of the conspiracy community (even more).

a reply to: whatsup86

No, because Dyson never claimed belief in "antropogenic" climate change - the poster of that jumped the shark with that.

He more correctly believes in naturally caused climate change that humans have no control over.

He did point out some things he thought might help.

originally posted by: luciddream
TOP PHYSICIST!??? I AM SOLD!!

Im gonna go burn and destroy things cause its natural

.

Info: Separating Man-Made Climate Change and Climate Change is just as same as a religious fanatic calling Evolution "Micro-Evolution" and "Macro-Evolution".. both are real and both are part of the same thing.

If that's the case we'd admit it's inevitable and quit wasting time micromanaging and spend resources on how to thrive with it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And once again you prove you don't know how to f'n read.
Read my posts. Climate change does exist, and it has existed since the world began. What drives climate change has been the same thing driving it since the world began as well.

Albedo modulation. The waxing and waning of the cycles of the sun. This is why climate change has also been detected on other planets in our solar system. Carbon dioxide only causes minor warming. It isn't the major driving force of climate change.
The entire reason why this whole thing is being argued the world over now, is to promote a carbon credit tax scheme for a-holes to make a ton of cash with like some have already done. This can only be accomplished if the problem can be totally blamed on CO2 as a cause of climate change. (They used to call it global warming) Change the name to suit the game!
redicecreations.com...
blogs.news.com.au...

a reply to: Phoenix

I think I liked this quote the best (from the first link):

At the same time, coal is very unpleasant stuff, and there are problems with coal quite apart from climate. I remember in England when we burned coal, everything was filthy. It was really bad, and that’s the way it is now in China, but you can clean that up as we did in England. It takes a certain amount of political willpower, and that takes time. Pollution is quite separate to the climate problem: one can be solved, and the other cannot, and the public doesn’t understand that.

link

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Krazysh0t


The entire reason why this whole thing is being argued the world over now is to promote a carbon credit tax scheme for a-holes to make a ton of cash with like some have already done. This can only be accomplished if the problem can be totally blamed on CO2 as a cause of climate change. (They used to call it global warming) Change the name to suit the game!

You're spot on, it's all about money from either end. It needs to be understood that there are a portion of Scientists who stand behind the idea of Climate Change due to the fact that if they come forward with evidence against it, then suddenly their research no longer gets funding.

It's all over exaggerated because certain people/companies stand to make a lot of money off it. The creation of fear (human extinction) and guilt (purchasing carbon offsets) has always been a sure-fire way to get people to spend money.

Just ask the Christians.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I posted what several scientists in the world have to say.

What do you have behind you? Scientists caught posting false information, deleting raw data, fudging data from different nations trying to instill fear on people that "we must let the government control everything so we can be saved"?

What is your answer going to be? I bet the same as always... "But there were several independent studies that said they did nothing wrong"... Yeah, studies made by the very same people who were part of the fraud, plus policy makers who only want to use climate change to implement their global political and economic goals...

Your scientists, like Mann, Jones, Trenbeth, who have been caught lying, posting false information, and in general pushing for people to accept the AGW hoax to implement their "global political and economic ideas".

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Pretty much what you accused the 'scientists' of is exactly what you are guilty of.

Human activity is causing changes to this planet's climate. To dismiss this reality is living in denial.

The only debate is how we should tackle the problem. I suggest planting more trees and ending our addiction to fossil fuels.

originally posted by: neodymiumskin
...
You're spot on, it's all about money from either end. It needs to be understood that there are a portion of Scientists who stand behind the idea of Climate Change due to the fact that if they come forward with evidence against it, then suddenly their research no longer gets funding.
...

You betcha it is among other things about making money, and taking more and more control over every aspect of people's lives.

Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire

Al Gore, the former US vice president, could become the world's first carbon billionaire after investing heavily in green energy companies.

Last year Mr Gore's venture capital firm loaned a small California firm $75m to develop energy-saving technology.

The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient.

The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants, the New York Times reports. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts.
...

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Revealed: scandal of carbon credit firm

April 8, 2011


Ben Cubby

A SYDNEY carbon credits company thought to have been running some of the world's biggest offsets deals appears to be a fake, shifting paper certificates instead of saving forests and cutting greenhouse emissions.

Shift2neutral says it has made high-profile events such as the Australian PGA golf championship and the Sydney Turf Club's world-first ''green race day'' carbon neutral.

When pressed for examples of any specific project that has cut emissions to generate the carbon credits the company offers for sale, he was unable to provide even one

But deals to generate more than $1 billion worth of carbon credits by saving jungles from logging in the Philippines, the Congo and across south-east Asia do not seem to exist.

The global network of investors and carbon offset certifiers supposed to be brokering deals with foreign presidents and the World Bank can be traced to a modest office in a shopping village in Westleigh, staffed by shift2neutral's founder, Brett Goldsworthy.
...

www.smh.com.au...

Last February I speculated: Carbon Credit Trading, the next financial bubble to burst? That has now come to pass for U.S. markets with the collapse of the Chicago Climate Exchange.

Carbon credits allow industries to emit carbon dioxide above any cap & trade regulations imposed. The carbon market exists as a commodity only through the decisions of politicians and bureaucrats, who determine both the demand, by setting emissions limits, and the supply, by establishing criteria for offsets. It was a bubble waiting to burst. Unlike traditional commodities, which at sometime during the course of their market exchange must be delivered to someone in physical form, the carbon market is based on the lack of delivery of an invisible substance to no one.

Since 2005, when carbon trading was one of the fastest growing commodities, there was speculation that if the Obama administration passed cap & trade legislation, the market would grow to $3 trillion.
...

tucsoncitizen.com...

The above are just some samples of how the rich, are becoming richer meanwhile trying to impose regular people to accept a hoax as being real.

originally posted by: jrod

Pretty much what you accused the 'scientists' of is exactly what you are guilty of.
...

Really? Care to show evidence of this? What I have noticed is that in several topics you never seem able to understand much of what is being spoken about.

originally posted by: jrod
Human activity is causing changes to this planet's climate. To dismiss this reality is living in denial.

The above statement is what is called a red herring. Yes, mankind has caused damage to the "environment" but that does not mean mankind has caused or exacerbated global warming...

Like always you fail to understand that the Earth has been warming since the 1600s. The claim from the AGW proponents that "this climate change is unprecedented and too fast" is nothing but a lie. There have been climate changes in the past that occurred within a few years, and within a decade. The ongoing climate change has been occurring for over 400 years...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Do you really want to look foolish again here?

We are observing an increase off CO2 as a direct result from burning fossil fuels. CO2 contributes to this thing called radiative forcing which traps heat in the atmosphere, hence the term green house gas.

That is science. I don't need overly wordy posts and quotes to get my point across, in fact I do believe you do that intentionally to drown out a discussion, topic dilution.

Show me some evidence( not to be confused with an opinion piece) that contradicts what I wrote, otherwise I will not continue to feed a troll.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Phoenix

I think I liked this quote the best (from the first link):

At the same time, coal is very unpleasant stuff, and there are problems with coal quite apart from climate. I remember in England when we burned coal, everything was filthy. It was really bad, and that’s the way it is now in China, but you can clean that up as we did in England. It takes a certain amount of political willpower, and that takes time. Pollution is quite separate to the climate problem: one can be solved, and the other cannot, and the public doesn’t understand that.

link

Well... I agree with steps to reduce actual pollution. I do not agree with law, regulations, fees or taxes based upon phantom data and ideas.

a reply to: jrod

Let me be clear again... You have stated on this same topic and in the same post that you doubt AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) and then you espoused it as believing in it. You don't even know what you think/believe in when it comes to topics like this one.

BTW, another fact you, among some others, don't seem to understand is that the majority of the GCMs are wrong because they assume that CO2 causes massive warming when it doesn't...

For more than three hundred years the Earth was already warming before the height of the industrial revolution increased anthropogenic CO2. It wasn't until the 19th century that the industrial revolution hit Europe.

The most important ghg is water vapor, and not CO2.

Between the sun's increased activity which cause the Earth's atmosphere to warm, which in turn allowed the atmosphere to contain more water vapor, and in turn cause more warming, so on and so forth.

For crying out loud, to this day the Earth's magnetic field is weakening at a faster rate, the Earth is experiencing an increase in earthquakes and volcanic activity which have been melting glaciers and the AGW camp want to claim it must be CO2 causing "climate change".

There have been, and continue to be changes on Earth which affect even the climate before anthropogenic CO2 became "supposedly" a problem.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Do you really want to look foolish again here?

We are observing an increase off CO2 as a direct result from burning fossil fuels. CO2 contributes to this thing called radiative forcing which traps heat in the atmosphere, hence the term green house gas.

That is science. I don't need overly wordy posts and quotes to get my point across, in fact I do believe you do that intentionally to drown out a discussion, topic dilution.

Show me some evidence( not to be confused with an opinion piece) that contradicts what I wrote, otherwise I will not continue to feed a troll.

CO2 contributes much less than what the money agenda alarmists are saying, but does not drive climate change. Try googling "Albedo modulation of the sun" look for the 6 degreed applied mathematics scientist who shows the science behind climate change, and stop lapping up the agenda driven crap the money agenda alarmists are serving you. Do you want the truth, or are you just a parrot?

originally posted by: Phoenix

Well... I agree with steps to reduce actual pollution. I do not agree with law, regulations, fees or taxes based upon phantom data and ideas.

I do agree, actual pollution and other toxic chemicals and substances are a problem. But CO2 is not a pollutant.

Without CO2 plant life on this planet would slowly die and then the entire animal kingdom, including humans, would slowly die.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

BS!

You have to do better than that, a rant about your opinion of CO2 does not hold any merit.

Furthermore, your posts show an extreme lack of knowledge about even the most basic aspects of climate science.

But go ahead and try to manufacture a consensus here, that is about all I see here.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Can't dispute the science so you resort to attacking my knowledge of the subject.

That is not going to cut it either.

Your talking points have been debunked over and over.

Can you provide evidence that the increase of CO2 we are observing is NOT caused by burning fossil fuels?

Again opinion pieces are not evidence, neither is your opinion.