Last time Earth hit these CO2 levels there were trees at the South Pole

.

Freeman Dyson is almost certainly the cleverest man alive, even his farts are cleverer than frauds like Michael Mann.
I

 
Last edited:
You can always rely on lazy ignorant people to use Sourcewatch as their goto attack dog site. No doubt Skeptical Science, Hot Whopper and Desmogblog come next.

We smart people tend to use smart sources, like Sourcewatch and Skeptical Science. We can't ALL spend our time slumming in British tabloids the way you do, right?
 
.

Freeman Dyson is almost certainly the cleverest man alive, even his farts are cleverer than frauds like Michael Mann.
I


Asking Freeman Dyson about climate change is a bit like asking Yo Yo Ma about zone defenses in the NFL. One can acknowledge Yo Yo Ma's brilliance in his field while also recognizing he has no expertise when it comes to American football. Similarly, Dyson is a rank amateur on the topic of climate science.
 
Freeman Dyson:

Climate models “very dangerous game”…”they’re wrong”

Next Poels makes his way to Princeton where he meets with “living legend” Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson, one of the leading skeptic voices on man-made climate change.

Dyson has harsh, critical words for climate science and the models they rely on (1:10:30). He calls the science of climate modeling a “very dangerous game”, adding:

When you work with a computer model for years and years and years – always improving the model – in the end you end up believing it. […] It’s very difficult to remain objective.”

Models “wrong”…”disagree with observations”

On why we should not trust the models, Dyson says flat out: “Because they’re wrong. It’s very simple. They’re wrong.” Dyson says they “disagree with observations”. He then commented on modeling scientists:

Those people don’t look at observations. They are in a world of their own.”

“Scaring the public”

The 93-year old Princeton professor also notes that although the models are “very good tools for understanding climate”, they are a “very bad tool for predicting climate” and that these scientists “live by scaring the public”.

Climate theories are “very confused”

Dyson continues:

Unfortunately the thing has become so political it’s no longer science when you have strong political dogmas, as you say, on both sides.”

Overall Dyson advises that we need to believe the observations and pointed out that “the theories of climate are very confused.”

Herd, tribal mentality

He also told Poels a large sociological part of the problem is that climate scientists have in large part gotten caught in herd and tribal mentality.

It’s still more important to belong to the tribe than to it is to speak the truth.”

 
Are you so incredibly stupid that you imagine someone in this thread argued that the South Pole is covered in coal dust? If so, point me to the language you misread to say that, and I can walk you through how you fucked up.

I only brought it up; because you wanted to cover one of two bergs, to make a point.

Why are you upset with me, when you're the one who wanted to include "coal dust" in an attempt to make a point?? :dunno:
 
As you can see from the temperature record, there was never a period of warming in the last several hundred thousand years anywhere near as rapid as the warming we are currently experiencing.

But, regardless, very few argue that humans won't survive this warming. I, for one, am highly confident we will. Even if something were so ecologically traumatic that it killed over 99.9% of us, the survivors would number above 7 million, which would still be greater than the human population through the majority of our existence as a species (estimates are in the single-digit millions for any period before about 10,000 BCE). We are a highly adaptable and omnivorous species, so any ecological bottleneck that leaves more than a few thousand of us alive is likely to be survivable for us as a species. But, the point, obviously, is that there are environmental catastrophes that would be easily survivable for the species that would, nonetheless, be an unimaginably horrific disaster for the vast majority of individual humans.

Look at the same numbers another way. Imagine a disaster so "minor" that it only killed 0.1% of us. It would barely be a blip on the global mortality graph. It would also mean seven and a half million additional premature deaths. It would be a catastrophe on a scale that made the Holocaust look relatively minor. It would be six or seven times as many people as all Americans who have ever died in war. It would be like suffering a 9/11 attack every single day for seven straight years. And that infinitesimal increase in mortality is very likely to be well below what winds up being attributable to climate change.

The good news is that it's largely avoidable. We have techniques and technologies that could allow us to vastly reduce carbon emissions with very little impact on quality of life. The bad news is that the right-wing imbeciles have a religious objection to such practical policy changes, and will fight them every step of the way.

BS and your liberal fantasy solutions punish the poor. Only the rich can afford to pollute in your lalaland ... and that's the way libs like it :palm:

542M_palaeotemps_2385x1067.png
 
Last edited:
It's not just some grown ups who believe that. It's the majority of educated people, a large majority of people with elite science educations, and well over 90% of those with actual expertise in the topic of climatology. Shouldn't that tell you something? Now, what would make you imagine that man can't change the climate? Be specific, please.

It tells me many people have been duped

But since you are so educated on this topic and are up on the science maybe you can answer this one question?

What is the ideal average global temperature?

I ask because if people are saying it is too warm, then there must be a temperature we would shoot for with all of these solutions leftists say will lower temperatures. Right?

Take your time
 
Why are you upset with me

I'm not. I'm amused by you. It's baffling how anyone could be stupid enough to misinterpret what I said that badly, but you went and did it. I'm left scratching my head wondering how such a person can even manage basic personal hygiene functions. Oh well, at least you're good for a laugh.
 
BS and your liberal fantasy solutions punish the poor.

No. The rich are going to be in a position to protect themselves from the impact of climate change to a fairly major degree. If an area becomes inundated, they can move to higher ground. If somewhere gets oppressively hot, they can afford a summer home somewhere more temperate, or just to pay for better climate control. If food prices sky-rocket, it'll still be cheap relative to their incomes. But the poor and middle class will suffer badly.
 
What is the ideal average global temperature?

What makes you imagine there's an ideal global temperature? Very obviously that's a question that would depend entirely on perspective. For example, if you're someone whose greatest interest is in maximizing the number of camels in the world, a much hotter-drier continent is probably a good thing. If, on the other hand, you're really rooting for the polar bears, something much cooler would be better.

The issue, though, isn't with the absolute global long-term average, but rather with the pace of change. The faster the change happens, the harder it is for both societies and ecosystems to adapt to it. Right now, we're seeing a pace of change that is very likely faster than any seen in hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. That's a very bad thing.
 
I'm not. I'm amused by you. It's baffling how anyone could be stupid enough to misinterpret what I said that badly, but you went and did it. I'm left scratching my head wondering how such a person can even manage basic personal hygiene functions. Oh well, at least you're good for a laugh.

ODD how you find my referencing your own comment, to be amusing!!

Does this mean that you weren't being serious, when you first mentioned the "coal dust"; because why would you otherwise bring it up??

What I find interesting, is your NEED to try to denigrate someone who challenges your presentations.
 
BS and your liberal fantasy solutions punish the poor. Only the rich can afford to pollute in your lalaland ... and that's the way libs like it :palm:

542M_palaeotemps_2385x1067.png

The dopey mare still.believes in Michael's Mann Hockey Stick bullshit, even the IPCC have abandoned that claptrap.
 
We're talking about the impact of the industrial era, which on the poorly-chosen scale your graph is showing, is too compressed to be seen.

lol....if we are talking about the impact of the industrial era it must really suck for you to realize that the incidents of global warming that happened a hundred thousand years ago were worse than the current cycle........
 
It's not just some grown ups who believe that. It's the majority of educated people, a large majority of people with elite science educations, and well over 90% of those with actual expertise in the topic of climatology. Shouldn't that tell you something? Now, what would make you imagine that man can't change the climate? Be specific, please.

no.....it is not the majority of educated people........it was the majority of demmycrats stupid enough to believe the fake news.........pretty much everyone now realizes that man cannot stop cyclical climate change......
 
Since LV (the Living Victim) hasn't provided any kind of proof, to prove that LV is real; I suggest that LV is just a made up persona, created by a juvenile and is being used to promote racial hatred by claiming to be Black.

:truestory:

Multiple personalities. Anything to escape the realism of its life. Good call!
 
What makes you imagine there's an ideal global temperature? Very obviously that's a question that would depend entirely on perspective. For example, if you're someone whose greatest interest is in maximizing the number of camels in the world, a much hotter-drier continent is probably a good thing. If, on the other hand, you're really rooting for the polar bears, something much cooler would be better.

The issue, though, isn't with the absolute global long-term average, but rather with the pace of change. The faster the change happens, the harder it is for both societies and ecosystems to adapt to it. Right now, we're seeing a pace of change that is very likely faster than any seen in hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. That's a very bad thing.

Oh. Ok

So it isn’t about the temperature. Got it

What is an appropriate rate of change?
 
Back
Top