Freeman Dyson on climate change

Renowned Princeton Physicist Freeman Dyson: ‘I’m 100% Democrat and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on the climate issue, and the Republicans took the right side’

Share the facts at Climate Depot: http://www.climatedepot.com/

' Are climate models getting better? You wrote how they have the most awful fudges, and they only really impress people who don't know about them.

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.

It seems almost medieval to suppose that nature is punishing us, rather than the Enlightenment view, that we can tame nature, and still be good stewards of it.

That's all true.

It's now difficult for scientists to have frank and honest input into public debates. Prof Brian Cox, who is the public face of physics in the UK thanks to the BBC, has said he has no obligation to listen to "deniers," or to any other views other than the orthodoxy.

That's a problem, but still I find that I have things to say and people do listen to me, and people have no particular complaints.

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.'

' Have you heard of the phrase "virtue signalling"? The UK bureaucracy made climate change its foreign policy priority, and we heard a lot of the phrase "leading the world in the fight ..." and by doing so, it seemed to be making a public declaration of its goodness and virtue ...

No [laughs]. Well, India and China aren't buying that. When you go beyond 50 years, everything will change. As far as the next 50 years are concerned, there are two main forces of energy, which are coal and shale gas. Emissions have been going down in the US while they've going up in Europe, and that's because of shale gas. It's only half the carbon dioxide emissions of coal. China may in fact be able to develop shale gas on a big scale and that means they burn a lot less coal.

It seems complete madness to prohibit shale gas. You wondered if climate change is an Anglophone preoccupation. Well, France is even more dogmatic than Britain about shale gas!'

Can the deans of the scientific community help us get past climate hysteria?

So Freeman whatever joins the 3% of climate scientists who think Obama's position is wrong. He got some press, you want to suck his cock and the beat goes on. Unless I read it wrong, his position is that introduction of C02 into the atmosphere is a positive thing, right? Wonder how much scientific support there is for that proposition. Based on the photo of Freeman whatever and the fact that he looks like he is about 90, I am guessing...none.

This little report has zero scientific significance, it's some old turd trying to remain relevant. Nice try though.

You've gone downhill Dali. You suck simpleton cock.

That 97% you like to tout is a farce.

There is NO CO2 forcing of climate change.
1. Its changes have always followed climate change, with a 450,000 year record of that in the Vostok studies. CO2 levels are the result of climate change and not the cause. Water vapor is the real greenhouse gas.
2. CO2 cannot amplify climate change either. That was also proven by Vostok when it show extreme climate change and CO2 levels did NOT change.
3. While considered a GHG it is very insignificant for several reasons. The quantum mechanics of carbon dioxide do not allow it to absorb heat/infrared radiation. It can only refract. And that can be explained by its use in lasers. If CO2 absorbed/retained heat, it would over heat a laser and blow it up, especially since it is so concentrated in a laser.
That brings us to another factor why CO2 is not even a good refractive molecule in the atmosphere. In the atmosphere it is so rare that it is not an effective refractive agent, either, especially when compared to the concentration in a laser.
So, folks, if you have people telling you that CO2 is heating our climate, they are either ignorant of the history of climate and the quantum mechanics of CO2 or they are just plain liars.

Enjoy drinking Hillary's sperm.

The 97% is a refuted "fact". Anyway, at one time it is safe to say that 3% of learned men thought the earth revolved around the sun. Who knew?

Yeah, so you say. Remind me of your scientific qualifications to make the call. I will fucking wait....you stupid douchebag Dick Cheney dick sucking worshiper. Let me think about the last fucking decision your boy made....that was about how the invasion of Iraq would turn out...right? How did that work out for you?

Again...as I have posted up repeatedly.....unlike you, I don't believe myself qualified to make the call. What I do believe I am qualified to make the call on is determining what percentage of the scientific community that is qualified to make the call thinks about the call. You can quack and scream and make your stupid ideologically based arguments that ignore the science on the issue. I guess you believe in creationism too, right? Because that's what your ideology calls for. Fucking idiot.

That 97% you like to tout is a farce.

There is NO CO2 forcing of climate change.
1. Its changes have always followed climate change, with a 450,000 year record of that in the Vostok studies. CO2 levels are the result of climate change and not the cause. Water vapor is the real greenhouse gas.
2. CO2 cannot amplify climate change either. That was also proven by Vostok when it show extreme climate change and CO2 levels did NOT change.
3. While considered a GHG it is very insignificant for several reasons. The quantum mechanics of carbon dioxide do not allow it to absorb heat/infrared radiation. It can only refract. And that can be explained by its use in lasers. If CO2 absorbed/retained heat, it would over heat a laser and blow it up, especially since it is so concentrated in a laser.
That brings us to another factor why CO2 is not even a good refractive molecule in the atmosphere. In the atmosphere it is so rare that it is not an effective refractive agent, either, especially when compared to the concentration in a laser.
So, folks, if you have people telling you that CO2 is heating our climate, they are either ignorant of the history of climate and the quantum mechanics of CO2 or they are just plain liars Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

The 97% is a refuted "fact". Anyway, at one time it is safe to say that 3% of learned men thought the earth revolved around the sun. Who knew? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Get your stupid ass back to the shallow end of the pool. Trying to justify your argument based on what people thought 300 years ago just about covers what a dumb mother fucker you are.

Follow the money. Governments give grants. Most of these scientist are in academia. Academia lives on government grants.

Government......"we will give you a 10 million dollar grant if you do a study supporting our agenda to tax carbon fuels"

Scientist........"for that kind of dough, I'll "prove" anything you think you can make a buck on".

Follow the money. Governments give grants. Most of these scientist are in academia. Academia lives on government grants.

Government......"we will give you a 10 million dollar grant if you do a study supporting our agenda to tax carbon fuels"

Scientist........"for that kind of dough, I'll "prove" anything you think you can make a buck on". Originally Posted by Jackie S

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ested-parties/

Yeah, so you say. Remind me of your scientific qualifications to make the call. I will fucking wait....you stupid douchebag Dick Cheney dick sucking worshiper. Let me think about the last fucking decision your boy made....that was about how the invasion of Iraq would turn out...right? How did that work out for you?

Again...as I have posted up repeatedly.....unlike you, I don't believe myself qualified to make the call. What I do believe I am qualified to make the call on is determining what percentage of the scientific community that is qualified to make the call thinks about the call. You can quack and scream and make your stupid ideologically based arguments that ignore the science on the issue. I guess you believe in creationism too, right? Because that's what your ideology calls for. Fucking idiot. Originally Posted by timpage

Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On June 19, apparently timed to warm up spirits at the Rio+20 meetings at the U.N. Conference on Sustainability that began the following day, Senator John Kerry gave a sizzling 55-minute indictment on the Senate floor of those who challenge global warming crisis claims. He referred to a “calculated campaign of disinformation”, which he said “…has steadily beaten back theconsensus momentum [italics added] for action on climate change and replaced it with timidity proponents in the face of millions of dollars of phony, contrived ‘talking points’, illogical and wholly unscientific propositions, and a general scorn for the truth wrapped in false threats about job loss and tax increase.” In his speech, Kerry called for the public to be “pounding on the doors of Congress” to act, and cataloged global perils such as drought, floods, wildfires, threatened coastlines, disease risks and more, noting “the danger we face could not be more real.”

Consensus momentum regarding action on climate change? Phony, contrived talking points, unscientific propositions, and a scorn for truth wrapped in false threats? Yes, he’s entirely correct on both accounts… but in the exact opposite direction that he, supported by representations in the “mainstream media”, has indicated.

Last August, Washington Post op-ed writer Richard Cohen scorned then-presidential candidate Rick Perry for publicly stating that he stood with an increasing number of scientists who have challenged the existence of man-made global warming threats. According to Cohen, “There were some, of course, just as there are some scientists who are global warming skeptics, but these few- about 2% of climate researchers- could hold their annual meeting in a phone booth, if there are any left. (Perhaps 2% of scientists think they are).”


This would require a pretty big phone booth, and actually, there really are many of those “global warming skeptics” still remaining. In fact, that number (yes- scientists with solid credentials) has been rapidly multiplying, not diminishing.

As Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute points out, “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).” And yes, I truly do hold both Joe Bast and Heartland in high

Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?


No one has ever been able to measure human contributions to climate. Don’t even think about buying a used car from anyone who claims they can.As Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has observed: “The notion of a ‘consensus’ is carefully manufactured for political and ideological purposes. Its proponents never explain what ‘consensus’ they are referring to. Is it a ‘consensus’ that future computer models will turn out correct? Is it a ‘consensus’ that the Earth has warmed? Proving that parts of the Earth have warmed does not prove that humans are responsible.”

Senator Inhofe also points out, “While it may appear to the casual observer that scientists promoting climate fears are in the majority, the evidence continues to reveal that this is an illusion. Climate skeptics…receive much smaller shares of university research funds, foundation funds and government grants and they are not plugged into the well-heeled environmental special interest lobby.” Accordingly, those who do receive support typically get more time free of teaching responsibilities, providing more time available for publishing activities.

Consider the National Academy of Sciences for example. In 2007, Congress appropriated $5,856,000 for NAS to complete a climate change study. The organization subsequently sold its conclusions in three separate report sections at $44 per download. The first volume, upon which the other two sections were based titled Advancing the Science of Climate Change, presents a case that human activities are warming the planet, and that this “poses significant risks”. The second urges that a cap-and-trade taxing system be implemented to reduce so-called greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The third explores strategies for adapting to the “reality” of climate change, meaning purported “extreme weather events like heavy precipitation and heat waves.”

What scientific understanding breakthrough did that big taxpayer-financed budget buy? Namely that the Earth’s temperature has risen over the past 100 years, and that human activities have resulted in a steady atmospheric CO2 increase. This is hardly new information, and few scientists are likely to challenge either of these assertions, which essentially prove no link between the two observations. All professional scientists recognize that correlation does not establish causation.

The report then states: “Both the basic physics of the greenhouse effect and more detailed calculations dictate that increases in atmospheric GHGs [greenhouse gases] should lead to warming of Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere.” In other words, the theory of Mankind’s increased CO2 output is responsible for warming because the theory’s model calculations say so…models which have never demonstrated the capability to correctly predict anything. And, on that basis alone, generous taxpayers should pump ever more generosity into higher prices for gasoline, electricity, food, industrial products, and of course, more funding for NAS and their dole-sharing brethren.

The National Research Council (NRC), a branch of the NAS, produced a recent report titledAmerica’s Climate Choices, claiming that humans are responsible for causing recent climate change, posing significant risk to human welfare and the environment. Of the 23 people who served on the panel that wrote it, only five have a Ph.D. in a field closely related to climate science, and another five are staffers of environmental activist organizations. It was chaired by a nuclear engineer with no formal climate science training, and the vice chairman served for years as a top staffer for the Environmental Defense Fund. Two other members are, or were, politicians, and one had been appointed by the Clinton-Gore administration as general counsel for EPA. Prior to publishing the report, 19 of the 23 had made public statements claiming that global warming is a human-induced problem and/or that action is required to reduce CO2.


As Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, observed, NAS President Ralph Cicerone is really saying that “…regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If government wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide.”

Some scientific society administrations are getting serious heat from their constituents for taking positions attributing climate change threats to human influences. In 2009, eighty prominent scientists, researchers and environmental business leaders, including many physicists, asked the century-old American Physical Society (APS), the nation’s leading physics organization, to change its policy statement which contains such language as “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate”, and “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.”

Instead, the group of scientists and academic leaders urged APS to revise its statement to read: “While substantial concern has been expressed that [greenhouse gas] emissions may cause significant climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th[and] 21st century changes are neither exceptional or persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In addition, there is an extensive literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both animals and plants.”

Then, in the aftermath of the ClimateGate e-mail scandal, 265 APS members circulated an open letter saying: “By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate which was and is an international science fraud, and the worst any of us have seen…We have asked APS management to put the 2007 statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done.” Of the 265 letter signatories, many or most are fellows of major scientific societies, more than 20 are members of national academies, two are Nobel laureates, and a large number are authors of major scientific books and recipients of prizes and awards for scientific research.

A June 22, 2009 editorial published in the American Chemical Society journal, Chemical and Engineering News, stated that “deniers” are attempting to “derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change”. That article prompted dozens of letters from angry members who rebuked it as “disgusting”, a “disgrace”, “filled with misinformation”, and “unworthy of a scientific periodical”. Many called for the replacement of its Editor-in-Chief Rudy Baum, who admitted to being “startled” and “surprised” by the negative reaction. As Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut wrote: “Baum’s remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist’s soul.”

While real polling of climate scientists and organization memberships is rare, there are a few examples. A 2008 international survey of climate scientists conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch revealed deep disagreement regarding two-thirds of the 54 questions asked about their professional views. Responses to about half of those areas were skewed on the “skeptic” side, with no consensus to support any alarm. The majority did not believe that atmospheric models can deal with important influences of clouds, precipitation, atmospheric convection, ocean convection, or turbulence. Most also did not believe that climate models can predict precipitation, sea level rise, extreme weather events, or temperature values for the next 50 years.


A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 63% of 571 who responded believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association.

A more recent 2012 survey published by the AMS found that only one in four respondents agreed with UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent warming. And while 89% believe that global warming is occurring, only 30% said they were very worried.

A March 2008 canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that “…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% of them attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” Regarding these results, APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

A 2009 report issued by the Polish Academy of Sciences PAN Committee of Geological Sciences, a major scientific institution in the European Union, agrees that the purported climate consensus argument is becoming increasingly untenable. It says, in part, that: “Over the past 400 thousand years – even without human intervention – the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar four times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time [interval] of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times. In total, it has gone up by almost 10 °C in the northern hemisphere, [and] therefore the changes mentioned above were incomparably more dramatic than the changes reported today.”

The report concludes: “The PAN Committee of Geological Sciences believes it necessary to start an interdisciplinary research based on comprehensive monitoring and modeling of the impact of other factors – not just the level of CO2 – on the climate. Only this kind of approach will bring us closer to identifying the causes of climate change.”

Finally, although any 98% climate consensus is 100% baloney, this is something all reasonable scientists should really agree about.


So much for your scientific consensus penis breath.

Follow the money. Governments give grants. Most of these scientist are in academia. Academia lives on government grants.

Government......"we will give you a 10 million dollar grant if you do a study supporting our agenda to tax carbon fuels"

Scientist........"for that kind of dough, I'll "prove" anything you think you can make a buck on". Originally Posted by Jackie S

This is wrong and shows that you know little about science. Scientists live to do one thing; prove other scientists wrong. Your little scenario is not how it works. It's not how it works at all. 10 percent is funded by government grants. That's it.

"According to OECD, around two-thirds of research and development in scientific and technical fields is carried out by industries, and 20% and 10% respectively by universities and government"

Renowned Princeton Physicist Freeman Dyson: ‘I’m 100% Democrat and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on the climate issue, and the Republicans took the right side’

Share the facts at Climate Depot: http://www.climatedepot.com/

' Are climate models getting better? You wrote how they have the most awful fudges, and they only really impress people who don't know about them.

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.

It seems almost medieval to suppose that nature is punishing us, rather than the Enlightenment view, that we can tame nature, and still be good stewards of it.

That's all true.

It's now difficult for scientists to have frank and honest input into public debates. Prof Brian Cox, who is the public face of physics in the UK thanks to the BBC, has said he has no obligation to listen to "deniers," or to any other views other than the orthodoxy.

That's a problem, but still I find that I have things to say and people do listen to me, and people have no particular complaints.

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.'

' Have you heard of the phrase "virtue signalling"? The UK bureaucracy made climate change its foreign policy priority, and we heard a lot of the phrase "leading the world in the fight ..." and by doing so, it seemed to be making a public declaration of its goodness and virtue ...

No [laughs]. Well, India and China aren't buying that. When you go beyond 50 years, everything will change. As far as the next 50 years are concerned, there are two main forces of energy, which are coal and shale gas. Emissions have been going down in the US while they've going up in Europe, and that's because of shale gas. It's only half the carbon dioxide emissions of coal. China may in fact be able to develop shale gas on a big scale and that means they burn a lot less coal.

It seems complete madness to prohibit shale gas. You wondered if climate change is an Anglophone preoccupation. Well, France is even more dogmatic than Britain about shale gas!'

Can the deans of the scientific community help us get past climate hysteria? Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

He's a physicist, not a climatologist. A PHD has very limited knowledge outside their own field.

Here is a great truth about science, you don't have to be a scientist to understand it. You just have to have some basic skills in math, physics, and chemistry.

FYI, the notion of a heliocentric solar system goes back 450 years not 300. Of course, you can even find evidence going back 2000 years before that but I guess it was lost with Alexander.

Do you understand that you can check out a book from the local library on how an atomic bomb works. A grade school student can understand and explain how that works. Now a student is not going to have access or the engineering skills to actually make a working bomb. Another student can design a working submarine even if they miss a few that they will pick up along the way. Science is not difficult. Most global warming believers have never looked at any science on the subject. They take the word of people who make money on the research.

He's a physicist, not a climatologist. A PHD has very limited knowledge outside their own field. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Obama isn't a climatologist either and he has little knowledge outside of being a community organizer.

Dyson is a good man, and a very intelligent one. If he has a flaw it is that he is TOO trusting of his fellow humans. If you ever have the chance to talk with him, it is an opportunity not to be missed. But back to the topic.

The key comment is this one: "It seems almost medieval to suppose that nature is punishing us, rather than the Enlightenment view, that we can tame nature, and still be good stewards of it."

Sadly, Dyson's faith in humanity doing what is right over what is greed driven is probably not defensible. We have demonstrated that though we CAN be good stewards, left to the Invisible Hand, we generally are not. We do not want to pay up for that good stewardship, we want to rape and pillage and let the next generation pay the bill. Our record on pollution of all types is nothing short of appalling. The at what time do we quit arguing about whether the climate is changing--it is--and focus on what we will do about it. CO2 is certainly not the whole issue, but ignoring it or pretending it is not happening is equally stupid.

Follow the money. Governments give grants. Most of these scientist are in academia. Academia lives on government grants.

Government......"we will give you a 10 million dollar grant if you do a study supporting our agenda to tax carbon fuels"

Scientist........"for that kind of dough, I'll "prove" anything you think you can make a buck on". Originally Posted by Jackie S

And, the climate deniers are funded by big oil...so, yeah....follow the money....and try to figure out who makes the most money from the continued use of fossil fuels as our primary source of energy.