Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
FReepmail me to get on or off
New!!: Dr. John Ray’s
GREENIE WATCH
Please ping me if you find one I’ve missed.
OKSooner and I are doing the POGW
ping list while xcamel is on vacation.
Posted on 04/17/2007 10:57:28 AM PDT by Names Ash Housewares
Transcripts are clickable on the site too if you dont want to watch. You can read instead.
Three interesting clips. This guy is not caught up in the hype over atmospheric CO2.
He slams computer models pretty hard.
Three short vids. First one should start right away. Select the last two on the dropdown menu on the left.
http://www.peoplesarchive.com/browse/movies/1248/en/
144. Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere: the balance between vegetation and atmosphere [Duration 00:06:33]
145. Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere: global warming and stratospheric cooling [Duration 00:01:27]
146. Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere: conclusions [Duration 00:02:42]
Freeman Dyson is almost universally agreed to be one of the smartest people on our planet.
That's why the MSM will simply ignore him instead of villifying him as they do other GW "heretics".
“I think we can control the carbon dioxide rather easily, because it’s a question of land management essentially and the amounts that are involved in the vegetation are so large that if you merely just change some of the forest management practices or do a little more irrigation in some places, it’s quite likely you can absorb all the carbon dioxide you want, at a cost which is far less than stopping burning coal and oil. So that’s essentially what I’m trying to understand.” -Freeman Dyson
Her certainly has concerns. But the above is very from from Al Gores message is it???
Her certainly has concerns. But the above is very from from Al Gores message is it???
Correction...
from AL Gores message ISN’T it???
HERETIC
The Great and Mighty Gore will not be pleased.
Shhhh
The Goracle may hear you!
Wow. Cool. Not so much the Global warming stuff, but the site itself.
ping
ref. ping
The CO2 Ox will be Gored.......
I'm sure Al knows as much about this topic as Divinity issues, one of his majors in college. Or maybe not; didn't he fail out of Divinity school?
I happen to be a rare believer, in general and in theory, with global warming, here on FR. That said, I am not a Global Warming (tm) alarmist. Dyson DOES believe in the dangers of CO2, but believes that the primary one isn't of warming, but of stratospeheric cooling, which hurts the ozone layer, which, when it opens holes over the ARCTIC, vs the Anarctic, where nobody lives anyways, is going to be a big problem. He also believes that by managing vegetation, we will be able, relatively simply, to manage CO2 levels.
There can be no debate as illustrated by the site listed below:
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/
DISCONTINUANCE OF PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
While we appreciate the additions to debate by the small but devoted band who have been using the discussion facility provided on this website for generally interesting and researched exchanges of views, we regret that due to the clogging of these discussion sections with incomprehensible gibberish by some anonymous but obviously demented devotee of ex-Senator Gore, we are closing the facility forthwith. Those of you who may feel inconvenienced by this action by our volunteer webmaster will know just who to blame.
Dyson has been right at the top of theoretical physics. He has had time to reflect on the limits of scientific knowledge.
A true Physics demigod. Unlike clowns such as Michael Mann.
CO2 ping!
I happen to be a moderately religious person; I mean I'm not in any sense a theologian or somebody who really knows a lot about religion, but I go to church and I have a feeling that it's a great thing that churches and synagogues and mosques exist in the world. They are communities of the kind that make people better on the whole, and certainly in Princeton we have about 25 churches and they're full every Sunday, in addition to a couple of synagogues and I don't know if there's a mosque on the highway not far away.
In any case, this is an important part of our lives and I'm very happy to be a part of it. My grandsons goes to the little Sunday school at the church where we go and so they're learning Bible stories and I think it's good that people learn these stories when they're young so they have some feeling for the culture even if they don't believe the religion. Christianity is very much a part of our culture and at least they should know what the bible is about. So I'm happy to belong to that, and the church also plays an important social role in this community. It's about the only institution that really ties the community together and takes care of aged and sick and poor people, so I'm all in favour of religion as an institution.
And at the same time, I find it doesn't make any conflict with my science; that religion to me is really not about belief, it's about belonging, it's about a way of life, and so I don't find the slightest difficulty in being a religious person in this sense and being a scientist. And that's maybe a slightly unusual combination. I mean, most of my friends either tend to be total agnostics who have no interest in religion at all, or else are worried about conflicts between science and religion. The more religious people that I know mostly have difficulties in harmonising science and religion. I find my situation is rather unusual, so I like to explain this. I suppose that's the main reason that I go to meetings, to try to point out to people that you can be both; that the conflicts are in a way very artificial and the conflicts only arise if you try to make religion into a science or if you try to make science into a religion, both of which are very unsatisfying.
Both mistakes, of course, are frequently made. The fundamentalists try to make religion into a science, and a lot of the more extreme what you might call science worshippers, in which I include Einstein, Einstein was one of the worst of those, he made science into a religion and he said quite explicitly that for him science was a religion, there was something sacred about it, and that I think is a cause of a great deal of difficulty, and caused him to take a very narrow view of science.
New!!: Dr. John Ray’s
GREENIE WATCH
Please ping me if you find one I’ve missed.
OKSooner and I are doing the POGW
ping list while xcamel is on vacation.
"All matter in the universe will be composed of iron at 10^77 years from now."
The scary thing is that we're already 25 years closer to the time when we've all been turned into iron!!
I’m gonna start selling iron offsets.
That is why I posted these vids.
Sure there may be concerns, we do not know for sure yet, and if so, it is possible they can be managed without impacting our ways of life as drastically as many try to say. Computer models are just that, models. Not measurements. And predicing doom and gloom scenarios from those models is irresponsible.
10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years!
And your worried now...?!
Do you by chance wear aluminum foil on your head? Just asking....
And he seems pretty adamant that we should do something about CO2
Ping: Worth watching.
Different reasons, same conclusion.
Bookmark
“And he seems pretty adamant that we should do something about CO2”
Possibly. He admits there is far more data to acquire.
And thinks that we can handle the problem with far simpler solutions then the Goreites preach, and not give up burning our fuels we do now.
That is a rather different take on the matter then what the MSM and libs preach.
Thanks for the ping and link. Mr. Dyson seems to be a well-educated original thinker. I think he enjoys being considered a “heretic” by “establishment scientists”.
Here’s a link to one of his speeches:
http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?DysonWinCom05
Starting with the eighth paragraph:
“...The first of my heresies says that all the fluff about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of twilight model experts and the crowd of diluted [”deluded”?] citizens that believe the numbers predicted by their models. Of course they say I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak.
“...But I have studied their climate models and know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics and do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields, farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.
“...The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That’s why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.
“...There’s no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer, but the warming is not global. The warming happens in places and times where it is cold, in the arctic more than the tropics, in the winter more than the summer, at night more than the daytime.
“...I’m not saying the warming doesn’t cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I’m saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans...”
Actually, when Mr. Dyson said, “...the problems [of global warming] are being grossly exaggerated...”, I thought he was agreeing with ME.
My wife and I walked our property last Saturday and saw that several large azaleas along our east driveway had been killed by our recent “record” cold snap. When I replace those azaleas next month, I will be encourged by the idea that young plants “fix” more CO2 than old plants.
Expanding (and restoring) my garden is the method that I have chosen to “buy carbon credits”. IMHO, my method is much more effective than Al Gore’s self-dealing scam. Not to mention a boon to my “visual” environment.
Ozone is old goods, can’t be sold twice.
Soon, we’ll be in the post-gw age and we’ll need a new global threat like oxygen saturation or nitrogen depletion or bagels and cheese...
Allow me to digress into the insane logic of the green leftists:
If CO2 is truly the primary cause of global warming, then all we need to do is cut down all the rain forests. That will most certainly reduce CO2 emissions. All that open space could then be used to farm corn to make ethanol so that we don’t have to drill into that barren wasteland... er that beautifully unspoiled, edenic paradise... known as ANWR.
Yep, the answer to global warming has to be: CUT DOWN ALL THE FORESTS!
I found this particularly satisfying, and a validation of the feeling I get every time I accidentally stumble onto an evo-creationist thread.
A pox on both their houses, I say...
If we read the same transcript, I missed "adamant'. Intrigued? yes. Adamant? no.
And he was emphatic about not doing anything until we understand what has already happened. In his words, we do not yet understand.
Did you miss that part?
Science is not doing something in a neurotic fit, "just in case".
Anothe rscientists departs from the “consensus” and debunks the global warming myth.
replay for my liberal buddies PING
Thanks for the post.
I’m pretty healthy, for an older, fat, balding guy. I expect to be around a little longer.
At the very end of the interview,he says that people seem to be waiting around to do something about CO2 until they are certain about global warming. He indicates that the concern about the ozone layer in the artic from stratospheric cooling is reason enough to act now.
So bascially he has a different conclusion than AlGore, but the same suggestion for doing something to reduce CO2.
Of course he hints that dealing with vegetation is really the best method and I agree.
Did you miss the part about stratospheric cooling and its potential affect on ozone in the artic?
You nicely cherry-picked the skepticism about warming - which I also pointed out. But Dyson still advocated reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. He advocated focusing on vegetation and sequestration to do so, but as far as I could read kept silent on industrial emissions other than to say it was unclear what signficance they had and that computer models are only as good or bad as the input.
Anyone who is paying attention to this entire debate recognizes that even those who don’t buy into the sky-is-falling wacko left theories, still realize that we need to do something for a variety of reasons. It is not an EMERGENCY, but rather a clear problem that is easier to solve step-by-step with intelligent market-based mechanisms and real science. But I believe I am now preaching to the (converted) choir.
Thanks for posting this quote.
“...Did you miss the part about stratospheric cooling and its potential affect on ozone in the artic?...”
No, but I really think you alarmists need to make up your “minds”. Is CO2 a “greenhouse gas” which causes “warming”? Or a “non-greenhouse gas” which causes “cooling”? Which is it?
While I’m waiting for your answer [...drumming of fingers...], consider this:
Some “scientists” SAY CO2
Is “confused” about WHAT it should do:
Warm UP the troposphere?
Cool DOWN the stratosphere?
Clearly, THAT theory’s untrue.
From your tone, I conclude that European true-believers have created a large POLITICAL crisis for themselves (and their more rational brethren) fueled by junk science, scapegoating, envy and superstition. I gather you personally think it’s too late (at least in Europe) to try to bring the discussion back to REAL science, which, after all, values “scepticism” more highly than “consensus”.
Stephen of Cloyes eventually learned that wildly-enthusiastic naivete does not “conquer all”. It’s too bad that today’s poorly-educated Europeans will have to learn that lesson all over again.
I know your comments are meant for others and not for me. You feel the need to reassure your “readers” of their pre-conceived notions and no need to think more carefully about the real issues of CO2. So, rather than continuing our very intersting disussion you feel the need to interject some silly talking points and weakly reasoned dismissals.
That is fine.
I don’t have all the answers, but can clearly see that CO2 is an issue. Anyone willing to open their eyes realizes the same.
It is funny that from one side of your (and others) mouth you will say “hey this scientist doesn’t think CO2 is a problem for global warming and that proves we are right”. But you will compeltely ignore the fact that he think CO2 causes a different equally global problem and therefore advocates some reasonable action to reduce human emissions.
The clear reality is that CO2 causes a problem or problems. My solution is to use market mechanisms to step by careful step reduce these emissions. It will be easy, cheap and probably overall good for American security, power and perhaps even the economy.
The left wants to use it as an excuse to redistribute wealth. The longer the right delays, the more strength the left will gain, not for solutions to the problem, but to promote their leftist agenda.
Thge right is sowing the seeds of its own destruction on this issue. It is not about morality and of late it no longer seems to be about science. It is just about money for oil and coal and ideology i.e. stubborness in to needing to admit being wrong.
Nevertheless, I continue to enjoy our exchanges.
Since I have a long business lunch and a squash match in my schedule today, I will be “too busy” to answer your comments in detail until tomorrow.
OTOH, since you “know” what I’m thinking — why don’t you just respond to what you “know” I would have said?
LOL - that gave me a chuckle.
Too many excellent scientists, especially those in the climate field, are coming together. I guess you’d have to call it a consensus:
human-induced global warming is bunk.
ping
ping
DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING !
NO more calls, please. We have a winner!
...BTW, what does Esther have to say about global warming? Or for that matter, Murray Gell-Mann?
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.