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

No less a scientific authority than Physicist Freeman Dyson is coming out and saying what many here on ATS have said in refuting Man Caused Global Warming adherents,

"This mystery, says Dyson, can only partly be explained in terms of follow the money." he goes on to say, "Also to blame, he believes, is a kind of collective yearning for apocalyptic doom."

Link

Link 2

With the recent Democratic debate having a majority saying "Climate Change" is one of if not the biggest threats to national security and the world. They are once again raising the specter of expensive regulations and tax schemes that are both useless and another way to separate people from their money.

Dyson, himself a longstanding Democrat voter, is especially disappointed by his chosen party’s unscientific stance on the climate change issue.

It’s very sad that in this country, political opinion parted (people’s views on climate change). I’m 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.

Part of the problem, he says, is the Democrats’ conflation of “pollution” (a genuine problem) with “climate change” (a natural phenomenon quite beyond mankind’s ability to control).

“I am hoping that the scientists and politicians who have been blindly demonizing carbon dioxide for 37 years will one day open their eyes and look at the evidence.”

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.

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?

Don't bother discussing the religion of climate change.

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.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Do you mean "how much is this costing the public, business and the countries of the world" or do you mean the strawman about "profits"

I think the second is far smaller of the two!

To answer your other question, from link 2,

At America's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Dyson was looking at the climate system before it became a hot political issue, over 25 years ago. He provides a robust foreword to a report written by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cofounder Indur Goklany on CO2 – a report published [PDF] today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think it is because he said follow the money and that he is a democrat, so that must mean he can't be wrong.

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.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

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

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Funny, no one says that when ditzy Hollywood actors are dragged out to give their worthless opinions on topics like climate change and all kinds of other progressive causes.

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 is fine if he wants to say that more CO2 does more good then harm, many scientist disagree with him. I ask again why he trumps all of them.

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.

So you are not siding with the scientist? His argument "climate change is a natural phenomenon" is not a lie. "Further separating the man from his money" is not a lie.

a reply to: Edumakated

Or when Steven Segal talks about guns...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

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.

Who would that be?

a reply to: Edumakated

Your post lays out this from Dyson,

I would say the opposite. What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what's observed and what's predicted have become much stronger. It's clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn't so clear 10 years ago. I can't say if they'll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable.

Models are Wrong his words not mine.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Phoenix

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

Here you go:
Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher

One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.

But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort

The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to an analysis released Friday afternoon.

The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement.

It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.

In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

Keep in mind, trying to "follow the money" for climate change believer scientists is rather hard. Meanwhile I easily got those three links with a simple Google search.

originally posted by: angryhulk

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.

So you are not siding with the scientist? His argument "climate change is a natural phenomenon" is not a lie. "Further separating the man from his money" is not a lie.

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.

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Funny, no one says that when ditzy Hollywood actors are dragged out to give their worthless opinions on topics like climate change and all kinds of other progressive causes.

Post a thread on here with George Clooney talking about Climate Change and see how quickly I either ignore it completely or call him out for the same fallacy.

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.

a reply to: Sremmos80

I don't think anyone can claim Freeman Dyson is not a renowned and well respected scientist,

Interview The life of physicist Freeman Dyson spans advising bomber command in World War II; working at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton, New Jersey, as a contemporary of Einstein; and providing advice to the US government on a wide range of scientific and technical issues.

Raising everyone's daily energy costs, limiting the availability which is happening and saddling providers and taxpayers with trillions in added costs over the next decades is based upon false data according to Dyson and many others.

Your "they don't want to do it because of profits" doesn't work when your data is flawed - therefore strawman.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: angryhulk

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.

So you are not siding with the scientist? His argument "climate change is a natural phenomenon" is not a lie. "Further separating the man from his money" is not a lie.

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.

But separating man from his money is a counter-productive approach to tackling the issue. If climate change is caused by man and his dangerous unnatural methods of creating and burning energy then you need to outright ban those methods, not tax it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So are you claiming Dyson is on the take?

In many many threads its been demonstrated that believers are financially involved with their false data claims.

Tit for tat I guess. But that's how you guys like to change focus on a thread isn't it?

So is Dyson on the take?