Funny how the smart people are all in agreement here.....
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/2...oncerns-over-trump-s-environmental-policy.htm
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/2...oncerns-over-trump-s-environmental-policy.htm
Stephen Hawking Raises Concerns Over Trump’s Environmental Policy -
- Thread starter bamaEER
- Start date
What about this brilliant scientist. I think he is pretty smart, lol.
Top Physicist Freeman Dyson: Obama Has Picked The ‘Wrong Side’ On Climate Change
321
Nadine Rupp/Getty Images
by JAMES DELINGPOLE13 Oct 20151219
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
The Register, Dyson expressed his despair at the current scientific obsession with climate change which he says is “not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to the obvious facts.”
This mystery, says Dyson, can only partly be explained in terms of follow the money. Also to blame, he believes, is a kind of collective yearning for apocalyptic doom.
It is true that there’s a large community of people who make their money by scaring the public, so money is certainly involved to some extent, but I don’t think that’s the full explanation.
It’s like a hundred years ago, before World War I, there was this insane craving for doom, which in a way, helped cause World War I. People like the poet Rupert Brooke were glorifying war as an escape from the dullness of modern life. [There was] the feeling we’d gone soft and degenerate, and war would be good for us all. That was in the air leading up to World War I, and in some ways it’s in the air today.
Dyson, himself a longstanding Democrat voter, is especially disappointed by his chosen party’s unscientific stance on the climate change issue.
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.
Part of the problem, he says, is the Democrats’ conflation of “pollution” (a genuine problem) with “climate change” (a natural phenomenon quite beyond mankind’s ability to control).
China and India rely on coal to keep growing, so they’ll clearly be burning coal in huge amounts. They need that to get rich. Whatever the rest of the world agrees to, China and India will continue to burn coal, so the discussion is quite pointless.
At the same time, coal is very unpleasant stuff, and there are problems with coal quite apart from climate. I remember in England when we burned coal, everything was filthy. It was really bad, and that’s the way it is now in China, but you can clean that up as we did in England. It takes a certain amount of political willpower, and that takes time. Pollution is quite separate to the climate problem: one can be solved, and the other cannot, and the public doesn’t understand that.
The short-to-medium term solution to the pollution problem, he argues, is the replacement of coal with much-maligned shale gas, whose rejection by much of Europe he finds unfathomable and counter-productive.
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!
Dyson, 91, has enjoyed a long, distinguished career as a physicist, mathematician and public intellectual, showing promise as early as the age of five when he calculated the number of atoms in the sun. During World War II, he worked at the Operation Research Section of the Royal Air Force’s Bomber Command, before moving to the US where Robert Oppenheimer awarded him a permanent post at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. He also worked at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, looking at the climate system 25 years ago, before it became a hot political issue.
The dangers of carbon dioxide, he believes, have been much overrated. In a foreword to a report for The Global Warming Policy Foundation by Indur Goklany called Carbon Dioxide: The Good News, – as reported here at Breitbart – he says:
To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.
I consider myself an unprejudiced person and to me these facts are obvious. But the same facts are not obvious to the majority of scientists and politicians who consider carbon dioxide to be evil and dangerous. The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
He likens the “climate change” issue to some of the other “irrational beliefs” promoted through history “by famous thinkers and adopted by loyal disciples.”
Sometimes, as in the use of bleeding as a treatment for various diseases, irrational belief did harm to a large number of human victims. George Washington was one of the victims. Other irrational beliefs, such as the phlogiston theory of burning or the Aristotelian cosmology of circular celestial motions, only did harm by delaying the careful examination of nature. In all these cases, we see a community of people happily united in a false belief that brought leaders and followers together. Anyone who questioned the prevailing belief would upset the peace of the community.
Dyson’s refusal ever to accommodate himself with the modish notions of the hour may explain why, unlike some of his less distinguished and brilliant contemporaries over the years, he has never been awarded a Nobel Prize.
He concludes:
“I am hoping that the scientists and politicians who have been blindly demonizing carbon dioxide for 37 years will one day open their eyes and look at the evidence.”
Top Physicist Freeman Dyson: Obama Has Picked The ‘Wrong Side’ On Climate Change
321
Nadine Rupp/Getty Images
by JAMES DELINGPOLE13 Oct 20151219
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
The Register, Dyson expressed his despair at the current scientific obsession with climate change which he says is “not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to the obvious facts.”
This mystery, says Dyson, can only partly be explained in terms of follow the money. Also to blame, he believes, is a kind of collective yearning for apocalyptic doom.
It is true that there’s a large community of people who make their money by scaring the public, so money is certainly involved to some extent, but I don’t think that’s the full explanation.
It’s like a hundred years ago, before World War I, there was this insane craving for doom, which in a way, helped cause World War I. People like the poet Rupert Brooke were glorifying war as an escape from the dullness of modern life. [There was] the feeling we’d gone soft and degenerate, and war would be good for us all. That was in the air leading up to World War I, and in some ways it’s in the air today.
Dyson, himself a longstanding Democrat voter, is especially disappointed by his chosen party’s unscientific stance on the climate change issue.
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.
Part of the problem, he says, is the Democrats’ conflation of “pollution” (a genuine problem) with “climate change” (a natural phenomenon quite beyond mankind’s ability to control).
China and India rely on coal to keep growing, so they’ll clearly be burning coal in huge amounts. They need that to get rich. Whatever the rest of the world agrees to, China and India will continue to burn coal, so the discussion is quite pointless.
At the same time, coal is very unpleasant stuff, and there are problems with coal quite apart from climate. I remember in England when we burned coal, everything was filthy. It was really bad, and that’s the way it is now in China, but you can clean that up as we did in England. It takes a certain amount of political willpower, and that takes time. Pollution is quite separate to the climate problem: one can be solved, and the other cannot, and the public doesn’t understand that.
The short-to-medium term solution to the pollution problem, he argues, is the replacement of coal with much-maligned shale gas, whose rejection by much of Europe he finds unfathomable and counter-productive.
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!
Dyson, 91, has enjoyed a long, distinguished career as a physicist, mathematician and public intellectual, showing promise as early as the age of five when he calculated the number of atoms in the sun. During World War II, he worked at the Operation Research Section of the Royal Air Force’s Bomber Command, before moving to the US where Robert Oppenheimer awarded him a permanent post at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. He also worked at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, looking at the climate system 25 years ago, before it became a hot political issue.
The dangers of carbon dioxide, he believes, have been much overrated. In a foreword to a report for The Global Warming Policy Foundation by Indur Goklany called Carbon Dioxide: The Good News, – as reported here at Breitbart – he says:
To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.
I consider myself an unprejudiced person and to me these facts are obvious. But the same facts are not obvious to the majority of scientists and politicians who consider carbon dioxide to be evil and dangerous. The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
He likens the “climate change” issue to some of the other “irrational beliefs” promoted through history “by famous thinkers and adopted by loyal disciples.”
Sometimes, as in the use of bleeding as a treatment for various diseases, irrational belief did harm to a large number of human victims. George Washington was one of the victims. Other irrational beliefs, such as the phlogiston theory of burning or the Aristotelian cosmology of circular celestial motions, only did harm by delaying the careful examination of nature. In all these cases, we see a community of people happily united in a false belief that brought leaders and followers together. Anyone who questioned the prevailing belief would upset the peace of the community.
Dyson’s refusal ever to accommodate himself with the modish notions of the hour may explain why, unlike some of his less distinguished and brilliant contemporaries over the years, he has never been awarded a Nobel Prize.
He concludes:
“I am hoping that the scientists and politicians who have been blindly demonizing carbon dioxide for 37 years will one day open their eyes and look at the evidence.”
Groupthink is bad. One would think someone who calls themselves a scientist would steer clear of it.
I bet they last longer than our Sharks. After going thru several Sharks I'm thinking of buying a Dyson.
Last edited:
"In agreement" were pretty key words in the post you replied to paxxx. Just cause your lone nut, that agrees in climate change, btw, just not the driving causes or the potential disasters.What about this brilliant scientist. I think he is pretty smart, lol.
Top Physicist Freeman Dyson: Obama Has Picked The ‘Wrong Side’ On Climate Change
321
Nadine Rupp/Getty Images
by JAMES DELINGPOLE13 Oct 20151219
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
The Register, Dyson expressed his despair at the current scientific obsession with climate change which he says is “not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to the obvious facts.”
This mystery, says Dyson, can only partly be explained in terms of follow the money. Also to blame, he believes, is a kind of collective yearning for apocalyptic doom.
It is true that there’s a large community of people who make their money by scaring the public, so money is certainly involved to some extent, but I don’t think that’s the full explanation.
It’s like a hundred years ago, before World War I, there was this insane craving for doom, which in a way, helped cause World War I. People like the poet Rupert Brooke were glorifying war as an escape from the dullness of modern life. [There was] the feeling we’d gone soft and degenerate, and war would be good for us all. That was in the air leading up to World War I, and in some ways it’s in the air today.
Dyson, himself a longstanding Democrat voter, is especially disappointed by his chosen party’s unscientific stance on the climate change issue.
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.
Part of the problem, he says, is the Democrats’ conflation of “pollution” (a genuine problem) with “climate change” (a natural phenomenon quite beyond mankind’s ability to control).
China and India rely on coal to keep growing, so they’ll clearly be burning coal in huge amounts. They need that to get rich. Whatever the rest of the world agrees to, China and India will continue to burn coal, so the discussion is quite pointless.
At the same time, coal is very unpleasant stuff, and there are problems with coal quite apart from climate. I remember in England when we burned coal, everything was filthy. It was really bad, and that’s the way it is now in China, but you can clean that up as we did in England. It takes a certain amount of political willpower, and that takes time. Pollution is quite separate to the climate problem: one can be solved, and the other cannot, and the public doesn’t understand that.
The short-to-medium term solution to the pollution problem, he argues, is the replacement of coal with much-maligned shale gas, whose rejection by much of Europe he finds unfathomable and counter-productive.
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!
Dyson, 91, has enjoyed a long, distinguished career as a physicist, mathematician and public intellectual, showing promise as early as the age of five when he calculated the number of atoms in the sun. During World War II, he worked at the Operation Research Section of the Royal Air Force’s Bomber Command, before moving to the US where Robert Oppenheimer awarded him a permanent post at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. He also worked at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, looking at the climate system 25 years ago, before it became a hot political issue.
The dangers of carbon dioxide, he believes, have been much overrated. In a foreword to a report for The Global Warming Policy Foundation by Indur Goklany called Carbon Dioxide: The Good News, – as reported here at Breitbart – he says:
To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.
I consider myself an unprejudiced person and to me these facts are obvious. But the same facts are not obvious to the majority of scientists and politicians who consider carbon dioxide to be evil and dangerous. The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
He likens the “climate change” issue to some of the other “irrational beliefs” promoted through history “by famous thinkers and adopted by loyal disciples.”
Sometimes, as in the use of bleeding as a treatment for various diseases, irrational belief did harm to a large number of human victims. George Washington was one of the victims. Other irrational beliefs, such as the phlogiston theory of burning or the Aristotelian cosmology of circular celestial motions, only did harm by delaying the careful examination of nature. In all these cases, we see a community of people happily united in a false belief that brought leaders and followers together. Anyone who questioned the prevailing belief would upset the peace of the community.
Dyson’s refusal ever to accommodate himself with the modish notions of the hour may explain why, unlike some of his less distinguished and brilliant contemporaries over the years, he has never been awarded a Nobel Prize.
He concludes:
“I am hoping that the scientists and politicians who have been blindly demonizing carbon dioxide for 37 years will one day open their eyes and look at the evidence.”
"Lone nut"? Freeman Dyson is a nut? He likely our foremost physicist in the world right now, an heir to Einstein. He states that climate change is natural, as it is. Our climate has always changed. It says that CO2 is harmless. It would prefer we burn natural gas over coal to reduce pollution, not change our climate which he thinks impossible.
Freeman Dyson speaks out about climate science, and fudge
Anthony Watts / April 5, 2013
Climatologists Are No Einsteins, Says His Successor
by Paul Mulshine, The Star Ledger via the GWPF
English: Freeman Dyson (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
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, the 89-year-old Dyson said when I phoned him.
“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,” he 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, he 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.”
I know why: They’re lazy. Instead of digging into the details, most journalists are content to repeat that mantra about “consensus” among climate scientists.
The problem, said Dyson, is that the consensus is based on those computer models. Computers are great for analyzing what happened in the past, he said, but not so good at figuring out what will happen in the future. But a lot of scientists have built their careers on them. Hence the hatred for dissenters.
Full story
While I agreed with your groupthink comment I have to draw the line on the vacuum sucks comment. We have the Dyson Animal and love it. Best vac we have had for dog and cat fur by far.
You have ZERO proof of what killed the dinosaurs. Many theories out there, but no proof.
Proof? No. Evidence? Yes. This is a very plausible theory, backed by evidence.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/extinction/dinosaurs/volcanism.html
Even is that theory is correct (can't be proven and is just a theory with many other theories out there), CO2 is far from the only gas emitted from a volcano. Huge elements of water vapor, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride and helium not to mention huge amounts of dust that blocks sun rays.
Nice try. but if these same gases aren't present today in the same amounts, your "theory" does not hold water.
I've got a couple different Sharks. Found that the higher up the food chain the better they are. Had one of the early rechargeable ones and it crapped out, replaced with a corded one and they're great. Have the steam mop too. Great on hardwood and tile.