Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on October 15, 2015, 10:52:03 AM
-
I have mentioned Freeman Dyson many times here regarding "Anthropogenic Global Warming". Much respect to him here, and it is always confounding to me that the "99% climate scientists" lists never include people like him, who actually understand closed systems, but are rather made up of biologists and "environmental scientists". It's some of the greatest evidence to show what a fraud that whole politicized process is.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/10/14/obama-took-wrong-side-on-climate-change-says-physicist-freeman-dyson.html?intcmp=hplnws
-
umm, wrong link unless Dyson is involved in a zoo love triangle.
Chris
-
Ha ha. Oops! This is what happens when I serial post before the second cup of joe. :laugh:
Link fixed.
-
for me, Dyson shot holes in his credibility when he said he was 100% a dhimmicrat, and liked Obama.
-
for me, Dyson shot holes in his credibility when he said he was 100% a dhimmicrat, and liked Obama.
You're using the same argument that the global warmers use.
Dyson is a well referenced, world renowned physicist who well understands the scientific method. The fact that he's a big Obama supporter is irrelevant to the scientific method, though one could argue that it actually makes his scientific position stronger, since it shows he doesn't sacrifice hard science for politics or popular opinion.
-
for me, Dyson shot holes in his credibility when he said he was 100% a dhimmicrat, and liked Obama.
I thought it was in there to mollify his democratic compatriots while he made non-PC statements.... in hopes of being more convincing to them.
Sorta like, "I own a gun, but..."
-
I thought it was in there to mollify his democratic compatriots while he made non-PC statements.... in hopes of being more convincing to them.
Sorta like, "I own a gun, but..."
Yet science is not there to convince people - science simply is. There's no need to convince anyone about gravity - they'll find out about it all on their own, one way or another. If people lived for 100,000 years, they'd also experience planetary climate outside of OMG AGW.
-
My worry is that as Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change "goes away", is that whatever new vehicle the collectivist Left comes up with to try and control everyone and everything will be even worse.
-
During his interview with The Register Dyson noted shortcomings in climate models. “What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what's observed and what's predicted have become much stronger,” he said. “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.”
10 years ago? The models were BS then also. They have always been BS. They just have gotten so fantastic that most can no longer just say we need to keep studying the issue. He doesn't mention the outright fraud that has been uncovered.
IMO, he is still white washing the issue. I guess he is trying to actually convince some of them. How long with it be before the Church of Climate Change goes after him?
-
10 years ago? The models were BS then also. They have always been BS. They just have gotten so fantastic that most can no longer just say we need to keep studying the issue. He doesn't mention the outright fraud that has been uncovered.
IMO, he is still white washing the issue. I guess he is trying to actually convince some of them. How long with it be before the Church of Climate Change goes after him?
They've already been going after him, for some years now.
In his defense of the models of ten years ago, the point was we didn't know. It looked like they might be indicating something, but it takes time to disprove the null hypothesis. After ten years we're able to say they're certainly not modeling correctly. Ten years ago you could say that they were bull, but you couldn't prove it. We actually can't prove it now (anymore than we can prove the theory of relativity), but we can say that the models are highly unlikely, given the accumulated data, especially when considering long term planetary climate.
-
I thought he made vacuum cleaners ???
(not really)
-
I thought he made vacuum cleaners ???
That's his cousin.
-
That's his cousin.
And he sucks.
-
They've already been going after him, for some years now.
In his defense of the models of ten years ago, the point was we didn't know. It looked like they might be indicating something, but it takes time to disprove the null hypothesis. After ten years we're able to say they're certainly not modeling correctly. Ten years ago you could say that they were bull, but you couldn't prove it. We actually can't prove it now (anymore than we can prove the theory of relativity), but we can say that the models are highly unlikely, given the accumulated data, especially when considering long term planetary climate.
IMO, ten years ago you could prove that none of the models worked when back tracked against past actual temps. What has come out in the last ten years (IMO) is that all the various questionable data that "proved" AGW was found to be fraudulent or inaccurate. There has been some new research and data that has backed up the case against global warming which has helped. I thought I read about one study that showed evidence that the little ice age and medieval warm period were world wide and not just local.
The arguments I always heard back in the 90's were how we didn't know for sure, but we had to act now and couldn't take the risk of being wrong. That morphed into "the science is settled" in the 2000's. It has taken time for the real science to set the record straight.
I remember an article I saw early on in the 90's about models showing runaway CO2 build up and temperature increases, but it was not quite stated that the catastrophic results were obtained by forcing inputs and variables to make the model show the bad results which the article headline was talking about. Noticing that sensational reporting colored my view on this early on. Later articles I saw never really talked about the actual results.
-
The arguments I always heard back in the 90's were how we didn't know for sure, but we had to act now and couldn't take the risk of being wrong. That morphed into "the science is settled" in the 2000's. It has taken time for the real science to set the record straight.
That was certainly one of the big problems when the new models were introduced. You had people like Michael Mann (climate scientist wannabe) cherry pick his data to prove his hypothesis (versus disprove the null), and people like James Hanson, who was at one time a reputable climate scientist, go off the deep end bringing politics into science.
Those are a couple of overt examples. Taking the model Mann used though, someone else could have cherry picked data to prove the opposite. What I think Dyson was partially referring to though, was that if you took that same model, and input all available historical climate data in an unbiased way with adequate QA/QC, that was where you had to be open-minded on what the model may or may not indicate.
Ten years later we're getting some good data on what they're not indicating, but we now have so-called "climate scientists" that aren't accepting the failure of their hypothesis for the models. This is the problem with the AGW believers - they have to be "right" when that's not what science is about. Failure of a model is just as important a discovery as it would be if the models were accurate. Failure in science is not really failure - it's success at narrowing possibilities. The AGW people won't accept that - they have to "win".
"Consensus science" is not science - it's politics.
-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/11/freeman_dyson_interview/?page=1
An interesting interview with Dr. Dyson in a large UK newspaper.
-
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.
I see this quote from the original post and all I can think of is: Yes, there is a reason why your party picked the wrong side. Honestly, I am think the establishment R's would pick that same side for the same reasons if their own donors were in favor of it.
Other than that, he seems quite practical in his view of things.