Posted on 10/16/2015 8:47:01 AM PDT by Kaslin
Why did one of the world's top physicists—ever—sign the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's Open Letter to Pope Francis on Climate Change, which challenges climate alarmism, though he's a liberal, a Democrat, likes President Obama, and has a strong background in climate science? His interview with the UK Register and his foreword to a new study titled Carbon Dioxide: The Good News reveal some of his reasons.
Freeman Dyson believes increasing atmospheric CO2 content does more good than harm and that President Obama "chose the wrong side" in the climate debate. He explains that climate change "is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?"
Some of those "obvious facts":
Asked by The Register 's reporter, "Are climate models getting better? You wrote how they have the most awful fudges, and they only really impress people who don't know about them," Dyson responded: "I would say the opposite. What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what's observed and what's predicted have become much stronger. It's clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn't so clear 10 years ago. I can't say if they'll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable" [i.e., easier to test by comparison with observations---a test that they fail, as discussed in this recent video.]
So why have so many scientists and other intellectuals been blind to these facts?
Whereas scientific inquiry, an essential element of which is the skeptic's demand for evidence rather than authority or consensus, has led to many great advances in our understanding of the world and how to thrive in it, Dyson explains, "the thinking of politicians and scientists about controversial issues today is still tribal," i.e., it promotes "tribal cohesion," feeling "at home in a group that thinks alike," and for them, "Thinking about scientific questions is still presented to the public as a competitive sport with winners and losers. For players of the sport with public reputations to defend, it is more important to belong to a winning team than to examine the evidence."
Dyson believes the tribalism of climate alarmists has roots in the U.S. government's initial steps to study the effects of CO2 emissions:
“In the year 1978, the United States Department of Energy drew up a ‘Comprehensive Plan for Carbon Dioxide Effects Research and Assessment’, which fixed the agenda of official discussions of carbon dioxide for the next 37 years. I wrote in a memorandum protesting against the plan: "The direct effects of carbon dioxide increase on plant growth and interspecific competition receive little attention. The plan is drawn up as if climatic change were the only serious effect of carbon dioxide on human activities. … In a comparison of the non-climatic with the climatic effects of carbon dioxide, the nonclimatic effects may be: 1. more certain, 2. more immediate, 3. easier to observe, 4. potentially at least as serious. … Our research plan should address these issues directly, not as a mere side-line to climatic studies." My protest received no attention and the Comprehensive Plan prevailed. As a result, the public perception of carbon dioxide has been dominated by the computer climate-model experts who designed the plan. The tribal group-thinking of that group of experts was amplified and reinforced by a supportive political bureaucracy.”
In the Register interview, Dyson made an important distinction: "Pollution is quite separate to the climate problem: one can be solved, and the other cannot, and the public doesn't understand that." The comment was in regard to coal as an energy source:
“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.”
In other words, coal can be burned cleanly, as it is in all high-income, industrialized societies, so long as CO2 isn't considered "dirty," a "pollutant." And Dyson firmly believes, as he wrote in his foreword, that CO2's non-climatic effects are "are overwhelmingly beneficial," while its climatic effects are "much less damaging than the effects predicted by the climate models, and have also been frequently beneficial."
The same reasons, and more, support the Cornwall Alliance's new petition Forget 'Climate Change', Energy Empowers the Poor! and An Open Letter on Climate Change to the People, their Local Representatives, the State Legislatures and Governors, the Congress, and the President of the United States of America. Read them, add your signature, ask your friends to do likewise, and bring them to the attention of your elected officials!
It’s clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn’t so clear 10 years ago. I can’t say if they’ll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable”
With a sophomoric statement like this, I have to wonder about this guy’s bona fides. First rule of any computer program or model is CRAP IN CRAP OUT.
/sarc
Dyson is proof that liberalism is a mental illness. A brilliant physicist with an excellent grasp of CO2 science who still supports the morons trying to take the world backwards by making CO2 an evil entity. Talk about tribal. Sheesh!
Dyson is the real deal in physics. But his tribe is leftism.
And his vacuum cleaners are waaay overpriced
Dyson’s as liberal as they come, but willing to look at the evidence, unlike most liberals.
[[Dyson believes increasing atmospheric CO2 content does more good than harm]]
For crying out loud- THERE ISN’T ENOUGH CO2 IN OUR ATMSOPHERE TO DO ANYTHING- PERIOD!
Had to shout because these idiots keep pretending that there is enough CO2 in our atmosphere to affect the climate-
The amount of CO2 In the atmosphere due to man comprises just 0.0036% of our atmosphere- there is no way in hell that that small amount can capture enough heat- back radiate a fraction of that captured heat in the ‘right direction (towards earth) to cause temperatures on earth to do ANYTHING but remain exactly what they are
Heck- there isn’t even enough Natural CO2 I n atmosphere either- Our atmosphere has a grand total of 0.04% CO2 in it- That’s it folks- There’s no “big thick blanket of CO2 covering the world preventing heat from escaping”- All there are is tiny pockets of CO2 scattered over the globe- which can NOT capture anywhere near enough escaping heat ot cause ANY kind of changes whatsoever
I would like this scientist to explain to everyone how just 0.0036% of our atmosphere can be capturing enough heat to change the temperature back on earth in ANY direction- He won’t be able to because such a small amount of heat making it’s way BACK to earth after being captured, now gets completely overwhelmed by massive volume of the new current surface temperature and quickly reaches equilibrium, with the surface temperature not moving one iota
To make an analogy- it would be like one person peeing in the ocean and claiming we just caused catastrophic temperature rise I n the whole ocean- The FACT of the matter is that there is so little warmer liquid that it quickly reaches equilibrium and the ocean temp remains the same- there simply is NOT enough warmer pee to change the ocean’s temperature
This is the argument that defeats ‘man-caused global climate change’ lies- not arguments like “More CO2 is actually good” (More CO2 may infact be good for plants crops etc- but the FACT is that CO2 is NOT driving climate change- there is nowhere near enough of it to do so- it isn’t even in the ballpark- Not even close- We have so far to go that we could NEVER produce enough CO2 no matter how hard we tried- Nature can’t even provide enough CO2 and nature produces far more CO2 than we do
The term is ‘garbage in, garbage out’... GIGO...
I think I affected the temp. of the Gulf of Mexico once, when I was in my fraternity.
...the big green grid represents the whole atmosphere (one million PPM). CO2 is represented by the tiny squares at mid-upper right -- blown up 4X, (below) to make them visible.
Today's number is 400PPM for the total CO2, so the sides of the larger square should be 20, instead of 19.
That (400 ppm) number, as a fraction of the whole, is trivial. So, the tiny green square representing the CO2 mankind can potentially control is absolutely inconsequential as to temperature-driving effect!
If you flew from JFK to LAX in a 747 -- after you traveled (today's) 400 PPM of the distance -- where would you be?
ANSWER: Your plane would just be rotating to lift its main gear from the JFL runway!
Hint: for the answer, highlight the spaces following, "ANSWER:"...
Wow, that’s quite a chart- I’ll check it out in more detail tonight- Tell her “well done!” And keep up the good work- It’s probably a losing battle, but we MUST continue trying to get the truth made known-
Indeed. Or, if you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.
I get that 0.0036% by the following
Total atmospheric CO2 stands at 0.04%
Man is responsible for just 3.4% of that total 0.04%
3.4% of 0.04% = 0.0036% of the atmosphere
This is different than the ppm figure
Our atmosphere has been over 8000 ppm in the past, and life was fine- the earth didn’t burn up- species didn’t die off etc- and the reason it didn’t is because even at 8000 ppm it is still such a miniscule % of the atmosphere, and is nowhere near enough to capture enough heat, and back radiate a fraction of that heat to earth to cause any kind of warming- there simply was not enough CO2
Not to mention the fact that warming always happens first, hundreds of years before CO2 levels in atmosphere rise- further proving CO2 is not what causes global climate change
See here.
You have confused James Dyson with Freeman Dyson. Both are very neat guys.
Sorry, missed my /s tag .
Global Warming on Free Republic here, here and here
NOW I'm impressed... hard to stand up to the NAZI left... if you're a member of that tribe.
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.