• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Freeman Dyson: Climate Change Predictions Are Absurd

Actually, it’s the first phrase out of the mouth of the most ignorant of climate deniers. I have heard it literally hundreds of times over the years.
Again, everyone is entitles to an opinion, but not everyone is entitled to their own facts.
Please list the papers that Dyson has published in regards to AGW. Thanks in advance.
Physics, is not just limited to the climate, and AGW comes down to raw physics, if the physics assumptions
used in the models are wrong, the models are wrong.
For Freeman Dyson to question the physics behind AGW, it is like Richard Feynman, or Albert Einstein questioning the physics of something.
 
So common sense tells us that human-produced CO2 spewing into the air since the advent of the Industrial Revolution has not long-term consequences for the atmosphere and climate? Really? That’s a very strange claim.

Their predicts told use kids wouldn't know what snow was now, that highways on the coast would've been underwater years ago. Yeah...they haven't turned out very well.
 
Their predicts told use kids wouldn't know what snow was now, that highways on the coast would've been underwater years ago. Yeah...they haven't turned out very well.

No predictions were made like that. Why do you peddle falsehoods?
 
Again, everyone is entitles to an opinion, but not everyone is entitled to their own facts.

Physics, is not just limited to the climate, and AGW comes down to raw physics, if the physics assumptions
used in the models are wrong, the models are wrong.
For Freeman Dyson to question the physics behind AGW, it is like Richard Feynman, or Albert Einstein questioning the physics of something.

Please list the papers published by Dyson re AGW.
 
Look, you brought up Dyson.

And this is what Dyson says in the piece:


The "we" is humans, humans are having an effect of the climate.

Mr. Dyson states he does not believe the effect will be catastrophic, without presenting any evidence, without presenting any data or study. It is just his personal opinion, not backed up by anything, and it does nothing to further the discussion.
That's the key.

The AGW cultists here seem to be arguing he is wrong because he doesn't believe it will by catastrophic.

That means they believe it will!

How insane is that?
 
Hansen has basically dedicated his professional life to trying to understand the present climate change and has authored, along with other professionals as co-authors, numerous papers on the subject. Has a Dyson authored any at all? It appears that the is just a dilettante in this regard. Like you.
I know people who have dedicated their life to in a field, and are still bettered by others new at it.

Do you have a point?
 
Actually Dyson's special experience in Physics, makes him well suited to evaluate the assumptions used, and finding produced by the climate models.
Both He and Hansen have a physics education, Dyson was world class physicist while Hansen was a bureaucrat, and activist.
Yep. He has a much better grasp as the required physics than James Hansen does.
 
Yep. He has a much better grasp as the required physics than James Hansen does.

Please refer me to the papers regarding the present global warming that have been published by Dyson so that I can research your statement about “better understanding”.
 
Yale Environment 360 interviews Freeman Dyson:

 
You guys are too hard on his wisdom. He was a great man. From one of the obituaties wrote about him:

His most conspicuously contrarian views were on climate change. Although not denying that rising atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide would alter global temperature and vegetation, he thought that many of the changes would be beneficial. Furthermore, he argued that models were not sufficiently precise to justify multi-billion-dollar technology ‘fixes’, such as the elimination of fossil fuels. The money would be better spent, he contended, combating hunger, illiteracy and disease.

 
Yale Environment 360 interviews Freeman Dyson:


Thanks. He admits that he has not done research in the area.
 
Again the physics of AGW, is the same physics for everything else.

I read his interview. He just seems like more of a dilettante regarding AGW than a serious climate scientist.
 
I read his interview. He just seems like more of a dilettante regarding AGW than a serious climate scientist.
His is a logical argument, the models are only as accurate as the assumptions used, and that they have a vested interest
in finding a problem.
 
I read his interview. He just seems like more of a dilettante regarding AGW than a serious climate scientist.
Fixed: "I read his interview. He just seems like more of a realist regarding AGW than a agenda driven climate scientist."
 
Fixed: "I read his interview. He just seems like more of a realist regarding AGW than a agenda driven climate scientist."

Please list the papers that he has published regarding AGW. Or is he just a dilettante mouthing his uneducated (about AGW) OPINIONS? Please not the portion of his interview where he admits that he is not all that informed about it.
 
Please list the papers that he has published regarding AGW. Or is he just a dilettante mouthing his uneducated (about AGW) OPINIONS? Please not the portion of his interview where he admits that he is not all that informed about it.
Why does that matter?

Are you an elitist?
 
Why does that matter?

Are you an elitist?

Taken from is interview, this is all that you or anyone needs to know about Dyson, in his own words: “I have two great disadvantages. First of all, I am 85 years old. Obviously, I’m an old fuddy-duddy. So, I have no credibility.
And, secondly, I am not an expert, and that’s not going to change. I am not going to make myself an expert.”

 
Taken from is interview, this is all that you or anyone needs to know about Dyson, in his own words: “I have two great disadvantages. First of all, I am 85 years old. Obviously, I’m an old fuddy-duddy. So, I have no credibility.
And, secondly, I am not an expert, and that’s not going to change. I am not going to make myself an expert.”

He was still smart enough to see trhe B.S. presented as fact regarding CO2.
 
Then show me.

Top 5 failed ‘snow free’ and ‘ice free’ predictions | The Daily Caller

Scientists predicted in 2000 that kids would grow up without snow. It was 14 years ago now when UK climate scientists argued that global warming would make snowfall a “a very rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” Dr. David Viner, a scientist with the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia, told the UK Independent in 2000.

After the wettest winter in 248 years, the UK was hit with snowstorms last week. Last year, the UK’s climate authority predicted that this winter would be drier than usual, with only a 15 percent chance of being wet. They were very wrong.

Stormy weather - Global warming - Salon.com (archive.org)

While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, "If what you're saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?" He looked for a while and was quiet and didn't say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, "Well, there will be more traffic." I, of course, didn't think he heard the question right. Then he explained, "The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won't be there. The trees in the median strip will change." Then he said, "There will be more police cars." Why? "Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up."
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
Stormy weather - Global warming - Salon.com (archive.org)

While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, "If what you're saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?" He looked for a while and was quiet and didn't say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, "Well, there will be more traffic." I, of course, didn't think he heard the question right. Then he explained, "The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won't be there. The trees in the median strip will change." Then he said, "There will be more police cars." Why? "Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up."
I think part of the problem is that James Hansen actually believed it when he said it in 1988 or 1989.
In 1997, Hansen published a paper, Radiative Forcing and Climate Response,
in which he assumes that doubling the CO2 level would produce an instantaneous forcing of 4 W m-2, and Ghost forcing of
an additional 4 W m-2, and warming of 3.84 C, this is a ratio of .48C/W m-2.
At the current time, the instantaneous forcing, with Hansen's assumption, would be 5.77 X ln(415/280) = 2.27 W m-2, 56% of the first doubling.
The 2.27 W m-2 combined with a lagged 1.92 W m-2 of ghost forcing (up to 2011), and the .48 C/W m-2,
would have yielded 2020 warming of (2.27 + 1.92) X .48 =2.01C, almost double the current level of warming.
 
Back
Top Bottom