Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I read a transcript from an interview with him. The models that he things are incorrect is because the computer models that create them don't account for things like clouds.
Sure, but if the models are incorrect, then the conclusions would by definition also be incorrect.
By the way, I'm just speaking in terms of his interview. You could throw it out and it wouldn't change anything, since none of the prior predictions have come true, either (including actual warming for years).
This is his opinion. And the article states that his opinion may or may not be correct. Honestly, I've never heard of him. Everyone has an opinion on climate change though.
Absolutely, but the problem is certain peoples' opinion on climate change is being used to spend billions of dollars and alter how you live your life. So it's a little more than just an opinion.
I completely agree, because the only refutations don't even rise to the level of being wrong.
Every scientific body agrees that the climate is changing. Those that disagree are just insane.
So says the one with no scientific background, no degrees in advanced science, no papers published in the peer reviewed literature, no formal scientific statistics training, and no experience at editing papers for the peer reviewed literature! This is how, and why, you KNOW that global warming is correct- you have no scientific knowledge or background whatsoever, yet have voted democrat all of your life. As a result of this, you are an expert in things you know nothing about.
There are simple rules of science which are violated by the blind acceptance of "global warming". The whole contention is the opposite of valid science. We are asked to disregard formal science (in which the null hypothesis is refuted) and accept the contention as fact in the absence of proving the null hypothesis. It is lunacy for anyone who actually has experience in an area of formal science. For liberal, arm-chair "scientists", on the other hand, global warming is "fact"! The funny thing is that they do not realize how absurd they appear.
Absolutely, but the problem is certain peoples' opinion on climate change is being used to spend billions of dollars and alter how you live your life. So it's a little more than just an opinion.
Actually it is no better than my opinion...
"I know a lot about nuclear weapons and nothing about climate change. I like to express heretical opinions, they might even happen to be true." Freeman Dyson.
Sure. But the opinions of the pro-climate change scientists are no better than mine. And yet we've changed the country based on it. What's your point?
[EDIT: Actually, I'm just trying to be bipartisan because the reality is that the opinions of the pro-climate change scientists are worth less than mine, since I've never been caught trying to fake data.]
"Freeman John Dyson FRS is an English-born American theoretical physicist and mathematician, famous for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering."
To answer your question, climate changes was not his expertise. He is a brilliant man, but it seems like his issues with climate change studies is he doesn't approve of the computer information that scientists are using to calculate their numbers.
Unless you are a scientist in the field of climatology then no their opinions are better than yours, when discussing climatology.
That would be true if they were actually using science, so not really.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So says the one with no scientific background, no degrees in advanced science, no papers published in the peer reviewed literature, no formal scientific statistics training, and no experience at editing papers for the peer reviewed literature! This is how, and why, you KNOW that global warming is correct- you have no scientific knowledge or background whatsoever, yet have voted democrat all of your life. As a result of this, you are an expert in things you know nothing about. 
