• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Freeman Dyson on the Unreliability of Climate Modeling

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
33,616
Reaction score
26,429
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Dyson is the greatest living scientist, imo. He came within a hair's breath of winning the Nobel Prize and is one of the architects of modern physics. He is also a critic of the current climate change hysteria sweeping the world.

Here is a good profile of him: The Civil Heretic - Freeman Dyson - Profile - The New York Times

This article was written ten years ago, and I found one part of it interesting- when his wife complained to him after watching the Al Gore movie that the polar bears were dying out, and he assured her they would do just fine. Guess what? The polar bear population is stable and not going extinct- so time did prove him right.

Here he is talking about the climate modeling that so-called experts are currently using:



His words:


You cannot prove a vague theory wrong. If the guess that you make is poorly expressed and the method you have for computing the consequences is a little vague then ….. you see that the theory is good as it can’t be proved wrong. If the process of computing the consequences is indefinite, then with a little skill any experimental result can be made to look like an expected consequence.

https://manicbeancounter.com/2015/04/08/freeman-dyson-on-climate-models/
 
This is an obvious appeal to authority fallacy.

As far as I am aware, Mr. Dyson has no formal training in meteorology, planetary science, or climate science.
 
Dyson is the greatest living scientist, imo. He came within a hair's breath of winning the Nobel Prize and is one of the architects of modern physics. He is also a critic of the current climate change hysteria sweeping the world.

Here is a good profile of him: The Civil Heretic - Freeman Dyson - Profile - The New York Times

[/COLOR]https://manicbeancounter.com/2015/04/08/freeman-dyson-on-climate-models/

So far as I'm aware, he does believe in AGW, but is a skeptic of predictive climate change models/simulations specifically, and feels there are more pressing concerns.
 
This is an obvious appeal to authority fallacy.

As far as I am aware, Mr. Dyson has no formal training in meteorology, planetary science, or climate science.

Wrong. Its obvious you didnt even read his explanation as to why climate modeling is misleading, so you shoot the messenger- which is an actual fallacy. Well done on that hypocrisy.

As far as formal training goes- it doesnt matter. Charles Darwin wasn't a scientist either, and he proved all the experts wrong when he came out with the evolutionary theory.

So far as I'm aware, he does believe in AGW, but is a skeptic of predictive climate change models/simulations specifically, and feels there are more pressing concerns.
Most critics of the hysteria do agree that some warming has indeed happened, as do I.
 
So far as I'm aware, he does believe in AGW, but is a skeptic of predictive climate change models/simulations specifically, and feels there are more pressing concerns.

which is out of line with the scientific consensus of people in the appropriate field. as brilliant as the man may be, he's unqualified for this and using his authority in this way is probably not in the interest of people of this world.

and climate change deniers on the ****ing internet using it for that purpose is definitely not good
 
which is out of line with the scientific consensus of people in the appropriate field.
Science does not advance with consensus, but its about who is right. Dyson has not been proven wrong, and thats more than I can say for the so-called experts who's modeling techniques are anyhting but the truth.

as brilliant as the man may be, he's unqualified for this and using his authority in this way is probably not in the interest of people of this world.
Yup, the chicken littles who believe the sky is falling can never be swayed by logic or facts, I'll grant you that.
 
This is an obvious appeal to authority fallacy.

As far as I am aware, Mr. Dyson has no formal training in meteorology, planetary science, or climate science.

Neither does Gavin Schmidt, among many others prominent in the field.
 
More excellent points by Dyson on climate models. He has been around them for over 30 years.

Freeman Dyson Takes on the Climate Establishment - Yale E360

"Syukuro Manabe, right here in Princeton, was the first person who did climate models with enhanced carbon dioxide and they were excellent models. And he used to say very firmly that these models are very good tools for understanding climate, but they are not good tools for predicting climate. I think that’s absolutely right. They are models, but they don’t pretend to be the real world. They are purely fluid dynamics. You can learn a lot from them, but you cannot learn what’s going to happen 10 years from now.

What’s wrong with the models. I mean, I haven’t examined them in detail, (but) I know roughly what’s in them. And the basic problem is that in the case of climate, very small structures, like clouds, dominate. And you cannot model them in any realistic way. They are far too small and too diverse.

So they say, ‘We represent cloudiness by a parameter,’ but I call it a fudge factor. So then you have a formula, which tells you if you have so much cloudiness and so much humidity, and so much temperature, and so much pressure, what will be the result… But if you are using it for a different climate, when you have twice as much carbon dioxide, there is no guarantee that that’s right. There is no way to test it.

We know that plants do react very strongly to enhanced carbon dioxide. At Oak Ridge, they did lots of experiments with enhanced carbon dioxide and it has a drastic effect on plants because it is the main food source for the plants… So if you change the carbon dioxide drastically by a factor of two, the whole behavior of the plant is different. Anyway, that’s so typical of the things they ignore. They are totally missing the biological side, which is probably more than half of the real system."
 

Why Climate Models Run Hot

by Rud Istvan, EPA administrator Pruitt wants to “Red Team” the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) consensus best reflected in the IPCC assessment reports (AR). At its core, CAGW rests on just three propositions: 1. CO2 is a ‘greenhouse’ gas retarding radiative cooling. This should not be in serious dispute since Tyndall experimentally proved…
July 6, 2017
in
,

 
Neither does Gavin Schmidt, among many others prominent in the field.

In their silly view, Charles Darwin shouldnt be allowed to discover the theory of evolution because he wasnt qualified...
 
This is an obvious appeal to authority fallacy.

As far as I am aware, Mr. Dyson has no formal training in meteorology, planetary science, or climate science.

Yup! Dyson's obviously an idiot!
 
A wonderful video in which Dyson clearly explains why climate models are no good at predicting the future.

 
Direct correlation between temperature and co2 has been conclusively proven.

Climate change is real. You dont get to have a choice in believing it or not. Belief implies choice.

The science is settled. Co2 and temperatures are directly related and human activity has increased emissions.

This is undeniable fact.

And yet we have an entire swathe of people believing right wing rhetoric that they have a choice in the matter.

To me this is abject. It is amoral and the right wing is guilty of politicizing climate change via donations from big oil.

Shame on you all. For peddling the conspiracy, and for peddling big oils lies.

Shame. Shame. Shame.
 
Direct correlation between temperature and co2 has been conclusively proven.

Climate change is real. You dont get to have a choice in believing it or not. Belief implies choice.

The science is settled. Co2 and temperatures are directly related and human activity has increased emissions.

This is undeniable fact.

And yet we have an entire swathe of people believing right wing rhetoric that they have a choice in the matter.

To me this is abject. It is amoral and the right wing is guilty of politicizing climate change via donations from big oil.

Shame on you all. For peddling the conspiracy, and for peddling big oils lies.

Shame. Shame. Shame.

Complete nonsense, and dishonest to boot.
The principal challenge to the orthodox AGW narrative is neither right wing nor connected to any industry.
 
which is out of line with the scientific consensus of people in the appropriate field. as brilliant as the man may be, he's unqualified for this and using his authority in this way is probably not in the interest of people of this world.

and climate change deniers on the ****ing internet using it for that purpose is definitely not good

There is no 'scientific consensus' perse but only a hodgepodge of scientific opinion as to probabilities that are all over the map as to conclusions. A consensus of scientists who support the most stringent AGW doctrines, even in the scientific field of climatology, is not even necessarily a plurality, let alone a significant majority.

From what little I know of Freeman Dyson, he is a brilliant scientific theorist who is not a denier but not one buying into the concept that it is necessary to curtail human liberties, options, opportunities, choices due to some kind of great climate emergency. And he understands, as many of us skeptics do, that people are not only able, but quite willing, to organize and manipulate data in a way that supports the conclusion they are seeking. Money is a powerful incentive to encourage that.

There are a lot of us unwilling to yield to national, even global dictates, based on what very often is increasingly being shown to be flawed science. You call us deniers. We call ourselves realistic.
 
Direct correlation between temperature and co2 has been conclusively proven.

Climate change is real. You dont get to have a choice in believing it or not. Belief implies choice.

The science is settled. Co2 and temperatures are directly related and human activity has increased emissions.

This is undeniable fact.

And yet we have an entire swathe of people believing right wing rhetoric that they have a choice in the matter.

To me this is abject. It is amoral and the right wing is guilty of politicizing climate change via donations from big oil.

Shame on you all. For peddling the conspiracy, and for peddling big oils lies.

Shame. Shame. Shame.

It is always amusing to read what a fanatic writes, where he makes clear that he is against debate, employs the usual funding fallacies and attacks groups he never debates with, yet they are guilty of something. He claims "rightwingers" politicize climate change, when it is the Democrats, along with their leftist Media, Universities, and government officials who are the main pusher of the propaganda, the very same ones who attacks others as "deniers", complain of oil money and squelch debate.

This dude, employs a false narrative so many warmists employs:

Thinks skeptics dispute that Climate Change, which is false. Thinks skeptics denies that CO2 has some warm forcing power, which is also false.

Thinks science is settled, which is evidence the person making this claim has no real science skill or education to draw from, because real science research is NEVER truly settled.

CO2 and Temperature is NOT directly related, there are plenty of evidence that CO2 lags in many time frames. The known lags are from 6-9 months to 400-800 years.

Shame on you for the lies you promote here, the fallacies, the absolutist statements you state, it is clear that YOU have a problem with honesty and your inability to be truthful.
 
which is out of line with the scientific consensus of people in the appropriate field. as brilliant as the man may be, he's unqualified for this and using his authority in this way is probably not in the interest of people of this world.

and climate change deniers on the ****ing internet using it for that purpose is definitely not good

Do you realize that there are many in YOUR consensus field who also do not, and I quote YOU: "has no formal training in meteorology, planetary science, or climate science." Yet they are part of your dishonest and useless consensus claim.

Warmists have a bad habit of employing fallacies such as education and Authority Fallacies, it seems to be something they pick up when they visit warmist propaganda blogs who does it every day.

Freeman Dyson has Physics Degree, the same one that James Hansen has, yet Freeman is denigrated, while Hansen is celebrated.

:lamo
 
A wonderful video in which Dyson clearly explains why climate models are no good at predicting the future.



Greetings. PoS. :2wave:

I really enjoyed listening to this remarkable gentleman! The brain power he possesses at 91 years of age is remarkable, and the fact that he explains things so the average guy or doll on the street understands what he is saying is something other scientists should consider emulating! Thanks for bringing him to us, PoS! :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
Dyson is the greatest living scientist, imo. He came within a hair's breath of winning the Nobel Prize and is one of the architects of modern physics. He is also a critic of the current climate change hysteria sweeping the world.

Here is a good profile of him: The Civil Heretic - Freeman Dyson - Profile - The New York Times

This article was written ten years ago, and I found one part of it interesting- when his wife complained to him after watching the Al Gore movie that the polar bears were dying out, and he assured her they would do just fine. Guess what? The polar bear population is stable and not going extinct- so time did prove him right.

Here he is talking about the climate modeling that so-called experts are currently using:



His words:


You cannot prove a vague theory wrong. If the guess that you make is poorly expressed and the method you have for computing the consequences is a little vague then ….. you see that the theory is good as it can’t be proved wrong. If the process of computing the consequences is indefinite, then with a little skill any experimental result can be made to look like an expected consequence.

https://manicbeancounter.com/2015/04/08/freeman-dyson-on-climate-models/



You think the ‘greatest living scientists’ somehow know stuff outside of their field as well as scientists who actually study the stuff for a living?


Wait till you hear about Linus Pauling and Vitamin C.
 
Direct correlation between temperature and co2 has been conclusively proven.

Climate change is real. You dont get to have a choice in believing it or not. Belief implies choice.

The science is settled. Co2 and temperatures are directly related and human activity has increased emissions.

This is undeniable fact.

And yet we have an entire swathe of people believing right wing rhetoric that they have a choice in the matter.

To me this is abject. It is amoral and the right wing is guilty of politicizing climate change via donations from big oil.

Shame on you all. For peddling the conspiracy, and for peddling big oils lies.

Shame. Shame. Shame.

Can you choose a single place on the earth, anywhere, some local council, which you think will have a single bad thing happen to it that will be expected to cost more to sort out, to prepare for this factor, as a result of the slight increase in temperatures as per the IPCC's climate numbers?
 
You think the ‘greatest living scientists’ somehow know stuff outside of their field as well as scientists who actually study the stuff for a living?


Wait till you hear about Linus Pauling and Vitamin C.

Freeman Dyson has as much training in climate science as Gavin Schmidt.
 
Back
Top Bottom