Loading...

Freeman Dyson: A Global Warming Heretic

44,283 views

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Published on Feb 9, 2014

Deniers/Heretics like Freeman Dyson, should get the death penalty according to an Australian-born Professor, Richard Parncutt;

"The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake."

However, Parncutt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_...) states;

"The death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential Global Warming deniers. Global Warming deniers fall into a completely different category from (mass murderer of children) Behring Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate."

However, convicted persons who "publicly repent" would be spared the death penalty.
But, he says; "Some global warming deniers would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed."
Parncutt says we should start with the 269 prominent deniers (most of them scientists) listed on the Desmogblog website; http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warm...

Freeman Dyson is a physicist who has been teaching at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton since Albert Einstein was there. When Einstein died in 1955, there was an opening for the title of "most brilliant physicist on the planet." Dyson has filled it.

So when the global-warming movement came along, a lot of people wondered why he didn't come along with it. The reason he's a skeptic is simple.

"I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic," Dyson said.

Then in the late 1970s, he got involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tenn.

That research, which involved scientists from many disciplines, was based on experimentation. The scientists studied such questions as how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with plant life and the role of clouds in warming.

But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.

"I just think they don't understand the climate," he said of climatologists. "Their computer models are full of fudge factors."

A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.

"The models are extremely oversimplified," Dyson said. "They don't represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds."

Dyson said his skepticism about those computer models was borne out by recent reports of a study by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading in Great Britain that showed global temperatures were flat between 2000 and 2010 — even though we humans poured record amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere during that decade.

That was vindication for a man who was termed "a civil heretic" in a New York Times Magazine article on his contrarian views. Dyson embraces that label, with its implication that what he opposes is a religious movement. So does his fellow Princeton physicist and fellow skeptic, William Happer.

"There are people who just need a cause that's bigger than themselves," said Happer. "Then they can feel virtuous and say other people are not virtuous."

To show how uncivil this crowd can get, Happer e-mailed me an article about an Australian professor who proposes — quite seriously — the death penalty for heretics such as Dyson. As did Galileo, they can get a reprieve if they recant.

I hope that guy never gets to hear Dyson's most heretical assertion: Atmospheric CO2 may actually be improving the environment.

"It's certainly true that carbon dioxide is good for vegetation," Dyson said. "About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO2 we put in the atmosphere. From that point of view, it's a real plus to burn coal and oil."

In fact, there's more solid evidence for the beneficial effects of CO2 than the negative effects, Dyson said. So why does the public hear only one side of this debate? "Because the media do an awful job of reporting it."

"They're absolutely lousy," he said of American journalists. "That's true also in Europe. I don't know why they've been brainwashed."

Loading...

Advertisement
When autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play next.

Up next


to add this to Watch Later

Add to

Loading playlists...