I guess Obama would call him a denier, lol.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/11/freeman_dyson_interview/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/11/freeman_dyson_interview/
The world's preeminent scientist views on global warming
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
So now you're a fan of a guy that doesn't like coal and acknowledges that burning fossil fuels increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
None of that is the point. You say coal is great and fossil fuels don't affect CO2. Up until now at least. So you're changing on those now are you?
I said "affect," not "emit." So is your position that burning fossil fuels does increase CO2 but that CO2 does not affect climate?
That's my point, namely Dyson things a CO2 increase is a net benefit and that's why you're jumping on his side. If anyone else says coal is bad or that CO2 affects the climate they're a bad guy but when a a guy says it but also comes to the conclusion you like then he's a good guy.
You (and many others) used to be like "It's all BS, burning fossil fuels does nothing." The change is gradual to, "it does something but not something bad."
Very simple question. You would think libs would have the intestinal fortitude to provide a straight forward answer.
I neither know nor care. It's beside the point.
ETA: I'm not talking about what Dyson is or is not. I'm nothing that he says things that, when said by people that say humans are changing the climate for the worse, annoy you but they don't annoy you when a guy (Dyson) says them and then agrees with you that humans aren't changing the climate for the worse.
Here is what annoys me. When people like you say the debate is over, the science is settled and you and others use the term denier. The same is true of Obama and the Dems. The same is also true, as Dyson notes, with many scientists.
IS DYSON A DENIER? Yes, that is a very important question and is right on point with the whole man made global warming theory. Why are you, Obama and the Dems trying to shut down debate? I thought debate on scientific theory was good. BTW, I think Dyson would have to lose 100 IQ points to get down to the level of the Michael Mann's of the world.
I don't say the debate is over per se, rather I say the debate is pretty much settled in the scientific community. Like many people on this issue you conflate the scientific debate with the political debate. Obama and the Dems are irrelevant to the scientific debate as are other politically motivated people.
The scientific community by and large has concluded that humans are affecting the climate and causing warming. That is a fact. Is that conclusion Irreversible? No, no conclusions in science are irreversible, which is one of the reasons it is so successful in describing the natural world.
A consensus that man is affecting the climate. That is an extremely broad statement. If man has a 1% impact, why change anything. If man has a 90% impact, that means something else entirely. And I don't believe there is a consensus of scientists that believe man is the principal driver of global warming.
As Dyson notes, current observations render the climate models moot. They are wrong. Why disrupt the global society and the global economy based on these models? Much,much more study needs to be done and no, the debate is not over and those that disagree are not deniers. Again, as Dyson notes, scientists are also claiming the science is settled with which he takes great offense.
The Dave has spoken - with a little levity. discussion is over unless you would like to bend the discussion a bit and try it with new parameters.
The Dave has spoken - with a little levity. discussion is over unless you would like to bend the discussion a bit and try it with new parameters.
