Freeman Dyson on Global Warming 1of2 Bogus Climate Models

A prominent scientist who's followed the science of global warming from the beginning, Dyson explains why climate models have no scientific merit, why average global ground temperature is a great fiction, and what he believes the real dangers of increased CO2 in the atmosphere are. He suggests that the relatively simple solution of land use management could potentially give us the ability to control the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at any level we'd like, and there's no need to stop burning coal and oil.

From http://peoplesarchive.com/browse/movies/1248/en/off/

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Freeman
• Dyson
• Global
• Warming
• Computer
• Climate
• Models
• CO2
• Vegetation
• Stratospheric
• Cooling
• Coal
• Oil
• Hydrocarbons

[david222444]

We are a carbon based life form . Do not believe computer models they are silicone based.

[rdangelo]

Who to believe? Him or AlGore? Lol...

[BlankVellum]

@LovingTorah It's hard to have a science discussion with someone who doesn't understand the slightest thing about the science involved. If you have something specific and worthwhile you'd like to add, feel free. If not, see you later.

[LovingTorah]

@BlankVellum maybe someone would listen to you if you stopped all your cursing, how can you be unbiased when you obviously can't disengage your emotions to not only have an adult discussion let alone one based on science

[BlankVellum]

@wishitwerewarmer "go ahead and try and show proof that man has affected the temperatures."

And you've been looking for 2 years? You clearly haven' been looking very hard have you cupcake. I'll PM you the details.

[BlankVellum]

@wishitwerewarmer Finally, GMST has risen exponentially over the last 100 years. CO2 levels are now at 390ppm, compared with preindustrial levels of 280ppm. A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years. Also, CO2 levels are at their highest in the last 15-20 million years (see Tripati 2009).

[BlankVellum]

@wishitwerewarmer "the people I made reference too were people that work for the same government as the scientist being investigated."

Ah, so now its just working for the same government? Is this some sort of advanced satire, or are you really this stupid? The way you get on, sweetheart, you'd think Jones and Mann et all are the only climate scientists on earth doing the research.

[BlankVellum]

@wishitwerewarmer It's so easy to take things out of context isn't it dear? As your email quote mining and the erroneous conclusions you draw from them aptly demonstrates. Dunning and Kruger got you perfectly right. I couldn't possibly respond to every misrepresentation here. But as I said, many independent inquiries into climatgate found no wrong doing. It's scientific illiterates like you who, rather than discuss the science, prefer to attack the scientists themselves. Pathetic.

[wishitwerewarmer]

@BlankVellum

Geoff Jenkins writes to Phil Jones:

Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with the early release of information (via Australia), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature, etc., etc.?

I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.

And you think the emails say nothing. sure.

[wishitwerewarmer]

@BlankVellum And thirdly, just because the temps seem to be going up(ever so slightly, tenths of a degree over a hundred years)) doesn't automatically mean it's because of man.

go ahead and try and show proof that man has affected the temperatures. If you can find it, it would be appreciated. I've searched for 2 yrs and still no proof.

[wishitwerewarmer]

@BlankVellum No, I had no problem with someone from the same country doing the investigation.

What I did have a problem with, was the fact that the people I made reference too were people that work for the same government as the scientist being investigated.

[wishitwerewarmer]

@BlankVellum If you don't think the emails exposed anything. Then explain this...

July 16, 1999: email 0932158667

In discussing a paper published in Science, Ed Cook asks Keith Briffa:

Also, there is no evidence for a decline or loss of temperature response in your data in the post-1950s (I assume that you didn’t apply a bodge here) …

Do you know what a bodge is?

You think the IPCC was brought about because there was a consensus?

The BS consensus came way after the IPCC