• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Global Warming Heretic

mhaze said:
Maybe. Maybe not.
Click to expand...

Try reversing the scenario. If Orin Pilkey or Michael Mann were to state that he felt the universe was collapsing and had been doing so for the last 28.7 billion years, would anyone listen?
 
Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Click to expand...

Hey Herz does that mean you concur with the climatologists???

Temperature is rising?

We have a significant role?? :popcorn1

Take your time....you are allowed to split your answers.....we'll get an account of where you stand.....

he scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments. Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.
Don't Miss



"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," said Peter Doran associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and one of the survey's authors.


"Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."


However, Doran was not surprised by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists. "They're the ones who study and publish on climate science.
Click to expand...
 
billydkid said:
He is not even close to being alone as a genuine AGW skeptic. Unfortunately, anyone who questions AGW orthodoxy is tarred with the "denier" epithet.
Click to expand...

Just as many of them claim the honour of heretic status, and of victimhood generally. They clearly think very highly of themselves. If they published good work on the subject instead of promoting themselves in the blogoshpere they'd have a tad more justification.

The issue is not nearly as cut and dried as most people seem to believe.
Click to expand...

It's not nearly as uncertain as many people like to believe.
 
Freeman Dyson certainly has a "flexible and open mind". He invented the interstellar craft powered by nuclear bombs, and the Dyson Sphere, which envisages an entirely artificial environment. Something of a technophile obviously (one might almost say technology is his religion) but not necessarily someone you'd turn to for advice on maintaining a survivable environment where we already live.

He's certainly keen to don the mantle of "heretic" right from the get-go. Were I uncharitable I'd suggest that here we have another old guy with a successful career long behind him eager to regain the limelight, and how better to do that than become an AGW heretic? As one of the very few old scientists in that camp he can be sure of blanket coverage - which, of course, is what he's getting.

As far as the subject is concerned he seems to have got much of his information from the same sources as Monckton, although he does add some twists of his own (which is more than that ignoramus Monckton is capable of).

His thoughts on sequestration of biomass as a means of countering CO2 accumulation, for instance. Changes in farming practices could indeed help to rebuild arable soils. Unfortunately that would involve changing back to practices which were superceded by the Green Revolution which sustains a pretty massive world population. He also suggests genetic engineering to create plants which sequester more biomass, but the Green Revolution has involved breeding varieties which produce less inedible biomass (roots and stalks). Can this circle be squared? Certainly not in the short term, and probably not in the medium term.

I really don't think he's thought this through. But what the heck, it gets him back in the limelight which he'd rather slipped out of since getting the Templeton Prize in 2000.
 
macdoc said:
Temperature is rising?
Click to expand...
Not in the last decade. In the last few years global temperatures are even falling. So, "97% of climatologists agree human activities are causing global cooling" should be the resume, shouldn't it? :D

macdoc said:
We have a significant role?? :popcorn1
Click to expand...
Well, yeah. Look, the pope has a significant role in the catholic church. But he's not causing it.
 
Dyson has bought into the "environmentalism is a secular religion" meme? That's a shame.

It doesn't alter the fact the CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that human activity has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 35% in just 150 years. Facts don't care what anyone, even an eminent scientist, believes.
 
That’s completely false Herzblut, any correctly drawn trend line shows continued increases in temperature, but you keep following those crank web sites, I'm sure it will pay off sooner or later.
 
Herzblut: are you aware of this proposal to use the temperature record between now and 2015 to determine whether warming has indeed stopped (or even reversed) or is continuing as predicted by AGW:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/

Do you agree that this is a fair test of both sides' predictions?

It might be fun to start a thread and have everyone place their bets, and then bump it once a year when the previous year's average global temperature is announced to see whether it has decided the outcome. It would be a change from all the usual backbiting and it would be nice to know that this argument, which has already been going on for so many years with no apparent end in sight, will indeed eventually be decided. (Even though in the worst case scenario it might be 2028 before there is a definite conclusion).
 
macdoc said:
oh spare us the conspiracy crap.....gets wearisome.....

this is a science forum :mgbanghead take the woo elsewhere..
Click to expand...
There is a well funded campaign by big oil to promote the denial of global warming. I'm not sure what rhtufts was referring to.
 
plumjam said:
I'd hazard a guess that Dyson has at least 20% more intelligence and integrity than anyone on this forum.
I've noticed a similar reaction to him that there was to Anthony Flew.
Well.. they're both old. If you're old you're not gonna be bothered about fitting in to the acceptable cosy consensus.
If you're old you're going to be more liable to just speak the truth. Think deathbed confessions.
Click to expand...
Dyson is a successful physicist, but he's also predicted a lot of hogwash. There is no evidence we can do all the things with technology Dyson believes we can.

Of course, his fantasies sold a lot of books. It pays to be a fantastic optimist.
 
Last edited:
This is one more of those situations where we must go with the "insiders" and try to evaluate their biases rather than go with outside critics.

No reasonable person would ever consider letting the AMA write a pressure vessel code, even though many of the mechanical engineers who are responsible have a vested interest in their point of view and, to some extent, their companies' products. Sure, some doctors have undergraduate degrees in mech engineering or may have a boiler in their basement, but you gotta go with the experts.

By the same token, it would not be reasonable to permit local undertakers to hold a morbidity and mortality conference, even though those undertakers had some interest and knowledge about any corpses that might have resulted from medical decisions.

The use of the phrase "global warming" is a strawman, set up by opponents of climate science. The more correct phrase is "climate change" and, yes, that has been fairly consistently used by most serious scientists for a long time now (No, VP Gore, even if you like him, isn't a serious scientist).

Most members of APS and most members of Sigma Xi, which I name only because I've read their position papers within the past few months, support the idea that there is climate change occuring, and this seems to be based on the expert opinions from their members who are climate scientists of one type or another.
 
skeptigirl said:
Dyson is a successful physicist, but he's also predicted a lot of hogwash.
Click to expand...

This might be similar to Fred Hoyle. He did a lot of good work in cosmology but his thoughts about the steady state universe and evolution wasn't correct.

Also I believe it has been shown that old scientist are much more likely to disagree with a new theory or world view compared to a young scientist. One standard answer to this at least in regard to AGW is that they don't need the funding but I believe that the young scientist in most of the cases where actually shown to be correct.
 
Pixel42 said:
Herzblut: are you aware of this proposal to use the temperature record between now and 2015 to determine whether warming has indeed stopped (or even reversed) or is continuing as predicted by AGW:
Click to expand...
The AGW predictions have been empirically falsified. There has been no accelerated ("unprecedented" :)) temperature increase between 1981 and 2005.

Actually, warming has stopped in 1998. This is obvious from the diagram above. Despite the funny fudge bars frantically fumbled into the diagram by a highly motivated but equally irritated coeval.

Right?
 
For those of you who are not reality impaired, here's how the models fared with the real world observations...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom