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

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Since ozone is found naturally in the atmosphere do you consider ozone not a pollutant too?

The cold hard FACT is we are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere at an alarming rate. CO2 is known to play significant role in driving this planet's climate hence concern from scientists, environmentalists, and most reasonable people.

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.

But if it was phage we would all accept it as reality, humbug a physicist
Or should we believe you because of your Denial bias

It's valid as a statement, we don't know

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.

While this debate takes center stage pollution continues and is not being addressed as it should because this silly debate keeps taking center stage. I also agree that the carbon laws are silly, though I must confess to a perverse desire to see them stay in effect long enough for me to produce some of my own biofuels so that I can claim some of those carbon tax credits that the oil companies usually get.

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.

I'll give it a shot. No one has thrown any numbers up yet, so how about these?
Composition of Dry Air near Sea Level(in parts per million):
Nitrogen: 780840
Oxygen: 209480
Argon: 9340
Carbon dioxide(CO2): 375
Neon: 18.18
Helium: 5.24
Methane: 2.0
Krypton: 1.14
Hydrogen: .5
Nitrous oxide: .5
Xenon: .087
This is taken from 'Chemistry The Central Science, 9th Ed.'; by Brown, LeMay, and Bursten; p.705; c2003; published by Prentice Hall. It is a textbook for science and engineering majors.

In percentages, we've got 78.1% Nitrogen, 20.9% Oxygen, 0.934% Argon, 0.0375% CO2, etc.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Now CO2 is at 400ppm...in just over 10 years. That is significant!

Also methane is increasing too, for now it is not too big of a threat, but as methane levels rise the concern increases.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The cold hard FACT is we are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere at an alarming rate.

'Alarming' is not a scientific term. Please elaborate and/or define the rate. When would it no longer be an 'alarming' rate?

CO2 is known to play significant role in driving this planet's climate

Please define significant. How does the climatic role of CO2 compare against, the Sun, water vapor, cloud formation, precipitation?

Are the thermal properties of CO2 linear, geometric, or logarithmic?

hence concern from scientists, environmentalists, and most reasonable people.

Yet we have conflicting concern from scientists, environmentalists and reasonable people that the proposed 'cures' are worse for the planet and civilization than the assumed problem.

And no one is looking at the other side of the coin, potential benefit. I was reading an article earlier this weekend that theorized the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has been a net bonus to mankind in that crop yield has increased more than expected which offsets the assumed Malthusian concerns of overpopulation.

I have a belief in human innovation to overcome any problems. We don't advance as a species without challenges. This whole climate hysteria reminds me of most progressive agendas... we have to fix things so they are stable, fluffy and safe. Problem is the universe is inherently dynamic, sharp and risky... and most of all it is reactive. No action goes unnoticed. We've prospered as a species that takes the punches and adapts, not as a species that crawls under a rock and hides.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

So you are just going to ignore the real world data and try to play the definitions game. I am not going to play along.

CO2 is increasing at about 20ppm a decade. This is quite significant!

The 'golden' solution is to end our addiction to fossil fuels, just my humble opinion.

The burden of proof is on you guys who think humans are not a major factor, not me to defend what the overwhelming majority of the scientists are telling us.

I challenge you guys to humble me, bring some real world data and sciencey stuff, not opinion pieces or political rhetoric.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So you are just going to ignore the real world data and try to play the definitions game. I am not going to play along.

CO2 is increasing at about 20ppm a decade. This is quite significant!

The 'golden' solution is to end our addiction to fossil fuels, just my humble opinion.

The burden of proof is on you guys who think humans are not a major factor, not me to defend what the overwhelming majority of the scientists are telling us.

I challenge you guys to humble me, bring some real world data and sciencey stuff, not opinion pieces or political rhetoric.

I thik I just laid it out for you right back there, j. Look at the raw numbers. A century of increase of carbon dioxide at the rate you estimated would still put the percentage of carbon dioxide at less than one tenth of one percent of total atmospheric gasses. Less than one tenth of one percent, even if co2 increased at double the rate you estimated. I am not scared of these numbers, because I truly believe we will move on to better energy sources within the next century than internal oxygen burning combustion. Pollution, however...this is a very serious and legitimate concern.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

The claim that CO2 levels are only 0.04% ( up from 0.028%) therefore not significant enough to make an impact tells me and the rest of the board that you also do not grasp basic climate science.

Do you want to take a wild guess on what the ppm of CFCs were that prompted a world wide ban as a result of extreme concern over CFCs and their role in causing significant problems with the ozone layer?

a reply to: Phoenix

Dyson knows what he's talking about, and I highly doubt he's been paid off. The man-made global warming idea is absolutely ridiculous if anyone actually studies climate change. But go ahead and trust the 75 out of 77 graduate-student "scientists" (aka, the "95% consensus" that is so often mentioned).

a reply to: Robotswilltakeover

RWTO, I'm with Dysons comments!

Heck I'm still awaiting the predicted new ice age before accepting any kind of warming theory.

These scientists could at least keep their predictions in order,

a reply to: Robotswilltakeover

First off, Dyson does agree with AGW, he just does not think it will be as bad as most the experts say. This is actually in the OP's link. But you guys didn't read that, you just see a headline that supports your confirmation bias and run with it.

It also needs to be noted that Dyson( he even admits this) does not know much about climate science, but once again you guys just ignore this and pretend his opinion is important because once again you are blinded by your confirmation bias.

a reply to: jrod

You must've missed the post with link that showed Dyson was in one of the first multidisciplinary climate study groups in the late 70's.

Using naval parlance, he's a plank owner.

Btw, yup I can read AND comprehend, Dyson believes in GW not AGW - big difference there.

Worth the repost, topc dilution and thread drift seems to be a problem in any climate thread.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

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.

And this one:

I took the liberty of bolding the good stuff.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
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.

Clearly you must have a selective memory that aligns with your confirmation bias with your reading comprehension.

a reply to: jrod

Dyson agreed before that there was a slight warming, but that was before the more current colder temperatures in previously glaciated areas, and droughts in previous Ice Age deserts. He has actually mentioned many times that an Ice Age would be much more devastating to humanity than a slight warming.

a reply to: jrod

Posting a post that was aptly refuted with the opening links is not much to rely on,

Show me where in the opening links Dyson uses the word "antropogenic GW " or where he claims GW is manmade.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

The claim that CO2 levels are only 0.04% ( up from 0.028%) therefore not significant enough to make an impact tells me and the rest of the board that you also do not grasp basic climate science.

Do you want to take a wild guess on what the ppm of CFCs were that prompted a world wide ban as a result of extreme concern over CFCs and their role in causing significant problems with the ozone layer?

That's not an accurate comparison. CFC's are man made refrigerants that become highly reactive in the upper atmosphere. CO2, or carbon dioxide, is an essential molecule to life as we know it. Plants take it in and convert it to oxygen and sugars. Humans and all animals produce it from the oxygen and sugars that we take in. That's like comparing apples to used motor oil.

originally posted by: jrod
And this one:

I took the liberty of bolding the good stuff.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
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.

Clearly you must have a selective memory that aligns with your confirmation bias with your reading comprehension.

I see your comment above and thought it was someone else replying to you. I think you have an issue of duplicity here. You are doing the exact thing you are claiming others do.
I am left wondering why you would even attempt to do this. Are you supporting the group mind agenda of the Obama administration to support this scam?

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Tu quoque buddy.

Where are the technical facts that dispute AGW?

More CO2 is good for plant life is not going to cut it...

We are on pace to doubling the CO2 count in just a couple of human lifespans...