Freeman Dyson is a physicist who has been teaching at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton since Albert Einstein was there. When Einstein died in 1955, there was an opening for the title of "most brilliant physicist on the planet." Dyson has filled it.


So when the global-warming movement came along, a lot of people wondered why he didn’t come along with it. The reason he’s a skeptic is simple, the 89-year-old Dyson said when I phoned him.
"I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic," Dyson said.

"I just think they don’t understand the climate," he said of climatologists. "Their computer models are full of fudge factors."

A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.

"The models are extremely oversimplified," he said. "They don't represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds."

Dyson said his skepticism about those computer models was borne out by recent reports of a study by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading in Great Britain that showed global temperatures were flat between 2000 and 2010 — even though we humans poured record amounts of CO-2 into the atmosphere during that decade.



http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/04/climatologists_are_no_einstein.html

I think many people feel the same way and could go a long way to knowing why climate scientists always move the goal posts. More than likely because climate scientists are no Einsteins and are a very closed minded bunch to boot.

I can't think of a more closed-minded bunch than the climate scientists and their AGW disciples.

Good post.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 9:29am:

I can't think of a more closed-minded bunch than the climate scientists and their AGW disciples. Good post.

To be honest, how can anyone claim to know anything significant about climate, if you cant even model it or predict any outcomes to any degree of certainty that is useful and reproducable in nature.

Climate scientists just try to bully us into thinking they are the all seeing eye when it comes to the climate. They are more like the baby just born to others with iq's of 120 in other similar fields.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 10:05am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 9:29am: I can't think of a more closed-minded bunch than the climate scientists and their AGW disciples. Good post. To be honest, how can anyone claim to know anything significant about climate, if you cant even model it or predict any outcomes to any degree of certainty that is useful and reproducable in nature. Climate scientists just try to bully us into thinking they are the all seeing eye when it comes to the climate. They are more like the baby just born to others with iq's of 120 in other similar fields.

Youre confusing CLIMATE with WEATHER events -

Scientists know a tremendous about of detail about CLIMATE. They are completely different matters - predicting WEATHER and modelling climate

The different Climatic conditions present on earth have been documented - past and present.

What you are confusing is the Weather Bureau not been able to tell you if it's going to rain in 23 days time WITH the climatic conditions of the Brazilian rainforests

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 2:50pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 10:05am: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 9:29am: I can't think of a more closed-minded bunch than the climate scientists and their AGW disciples. Good post. To be honest, how can anyone claim to know anything significant about climate, if you cant even model it or predict any outcomes to any degree of certainty that is useful and reproducable in nature. Climate scientists just try to bully us into thinking they are the all seeing eye when it comes to the climate. They are more like the baby just born to others with iq's of 120 in other similar fields. Youre confusing CLIMATE with WEATHER events - Scientists know a tremendous about of detail about CLIMATE. They are completely different matters - predicting WEATHER and modelling climate The different Climatic conditions present on earth have been documented - past and present. What you are confusing is the Weather Bureau not been able to tell you if it's going to rain in 23 days time WITH the climatic conditions of the Brazilian rainforests

I am talking of climate science, not weather science. Your response was as close to foolish as possible.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 3:41pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 2:50pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 10:05am: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 9:29am: I can't think of a more closed-minded bunch than the climate scientists and their AGW disciples. Good post. To be honest, how can anyone claim to know anything significant about climate, if you cant even model it or predict any outcomes to any degree of certainty that is useful and reproducable in nature. Climate scientists just try to bully us into thinking they are the all seeing eye when it comes to the climate. They are more like the baby just born to others with iq's of 120 in other similar fields. Youre confusing CLIMATE with WEATHER events - Scientists know a tremendous about of detail about CLIMATE. They are completely different matters - predicting WEATHER and modelling climate The different Climatic conditions present on earth have been documented - past and present. What you are confusing is the Weather Bureau not been able to tell you if it's going to rain in 23 days time WITH the climatic conditions of the Brazilian rainforests I am talking of climate science, not weather science. Your response was as close to foolish as possible.

I know exactly what you were talking about - if indeed you even understand your own words.

So your claim is the Climate Science is worthless?

(The science of the earths Climatic conditions is well understood and based on theory and observation - youre a clown)

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 3:41pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 2:50pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 10:05am: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 9:29am: I can't think of a more closed-minded bunch than the climate scientists and their AGW disciples. Good post. To be honest, how can anyone claim to know anything significant about climate, if you cant even model it or predict any outcomes to any degree of certainty that is useful and reproducable in nature. Climate scientists just try to bully us into thinking they are the all seeing eye when it comes to the climate. They are more like the baby just born to others with iq's of 120 in other similar fields. Youre confusing CLIMATE with WEATHER events - Scientists know a tremendous about of detail about CLIMATE. They are completely different matters - predicting WEATHER and modelling climate The different Climatic conditions present on earth have been documented - past and present. What you are confusing is the Weather Bureau not been able to tell you if it's going to rain in 23 days time WITH the climatic conditions of the Brazilian rainforests I am talking of climate science, not weather science. Your response was as close to foolish as possible.

Yes.  I'd go as far as saying that it was actually foolish.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 6:28pm:

So your claim is the Climate Science is worthless? (The science of the earths Climatic conditions is well understood and based on theory and observation - youre a clown)

You'll never convince them otherwise. They always have more to cut and paste from the great unwashed blogosphere.  Some day they might just realise the truth, but don't hold your breath. Of course 89 year old denialists will soon die out.

muso wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 7:17pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 6:28pm: So your claim is the Climate Science is worthless? (The science of the earths Climatic conditions is well understood and based on theory and observation - youre a clown) You'll never convince them otherwise. They always have more to cut and paste from the great unwashed blogosphere.  Some day they might just realise the truth, but don't hold your breath. Of course 89 year old denialists will soon die out.

...only Andrew Bolt knows the truth about global warming and its causes and future consequences

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 6:37pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 3:41pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 2:50pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 10:05am: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 9:29am: I can't think of a more closed-minded bunch than the climate scientists and their AGW disciples. Good post. To be honest, how can anyone claim to know anything significant about climate, if you cant even model it or predict any outcomes to any degree of certainty that is useful and reproducable in nature. Climate scientists just try to bully us into thinking they are the all seeing eye when it comes to the climate. They are more like the baby just born to others with iq's of 120 in other similar fields. Youre confusing CLIMATE with WEATHER events - Scientists know a tremendous about of detail about CLIMATE. They are completely different matters - predicting WEATHER and modelling climate The different Climatic conditions present on earth have been documented - past and present. What you are confusing is the Weather Bureau not been able to tell you if it's going to rain in 23 days time WITH the climatic conditions of the Brazilian rainforests I am talking of climate science, not weather science. Your response was as close to foolish as possible. Yes.  I'd go as far as saying that it was actually foolish.

the earth is not flat

Eratosthenes at around 200 BC not only knew it was spherical he conducted the worlds first scientific experiment that estimated the circumference of the earth (to within about 5% error)

That SCIENTIFIC FACT didn't stop the flat earthers from forming their lunatic cults. Cults which exist even today.

You can be excused for making an error, but to be in possession of a negative IQ level without any genetic basis is utterly reprehensible

You should be totally ashamed of yourself

muso wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 7:17pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 6:28pm: So your claim is the Climate Science is worthless? (The science of the earths Climatic conditions is well understood and based on theory and observation - youre a clown) You'll never convince them otherwise. They always have more to cut and paste from the great unwashed blogosphere.  Some day they might just realise the truth, but don't hold your breath. Of course 89 year old denialists will soon die out.

Bit hard to fool scientists like the one in this thread isnt it. You cant use science to convince them can you. lol too funny muso.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 7:55pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 6:37pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 3:41pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 2:50pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 10:05am: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 9:29am: I can't think of a more closed-minded bunch than the climate scientists and their AGW disciples. Good post. To be honest, how can anyone claim to know anything significant about climate, if you cant even model it or predict any outcomes to any degree of certainty that is useful and reproducable in nature. Climate scientists just try to bully us into thinking they are the all seeing eye when it comes to the climate. They are more like the baby just born to others with iq's of 120 in other similar fields. Youre confusing CLIMATE with WEATHER events - Scientists know a tremendous about of detail about CLIMATE. They are completely different matters - predicting WEATHER and modelling climate The different Climatic conditions present on earth have been documented - past and present. What you are confusing is the Weather Bureau not been able to tell you if it's going to rain in 23 days time WITH the climatic conditions of the Brazilian rainforests I am talking of climate science, not weather science. Your response was as close to foolish as possible. Yes.  I'd go as far as saying that it was actually foolish. the earth is not flat Eratosthenes at around 200 BC not only knew it was spherical he conducted the worlds first scientific experiment that estimated the circumference of the earth (to within about 5% error) That SCIENTIFIC FACT didn't stop the flat earthers from forming their lunatic cults. Cults which exist even today. You can be excused for making an error, but to be in possession of a negative IQ level without any genetic basis is utterly reprehensible You should be totally ashamed of yourself

You are in the wrong thread if you want to talk science fact. Maybe philosophy may be a better place for you than climate science.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 7:55pm:

the earth is not flat

Correct.  Well done you.



Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 7:55pm:

That SCIENTIFIC FACT didn't stop the flat earthers from forming their lunatic cults. Cults which exist even today.

a) This thread is not about "flat earthers".

b) AGW is not "SCIENTIFIC FACT": it's merely the currently accepted hypothesis.

89.   Lol.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 10:05am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 9:29am: I can't think of a more closed-minded bunch than the climate scientists and their AGW disciples. Good post. To be honest, how can anyone claim to know anything significant about climate, if you cant even model it or predict any outcomes to any degree of certainty that is useful and reproducable in nature. Climate scientists just try to bully us into thinking they are the all seeing eye when it comes to the climate. They are more like the baby just born to others with iq's of 120 in other similar fields.

Are you talking about economic models aswell???

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 6^th, 2013 at 7:54pm:

muso wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 7:17pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 6th, 2013 at 6:28pm: So your claim is the Climate Science is worthless? (The science of the earths Climatic conditions is well understood and based on theory and observation - youre a clown) You'll never convince them otherwise. They always have more to cut and paste from the great unwashed blogosphere.  Some day they might just realise the truth, but don't hold your breath. Of course 89 year old denialists will soon die out. ...only Andrew Bolt knows the truth about global warming and its causes and future consequences

Andrew Bolt admits he doesn't even believe what he says!!

:o

Andrew Bolt admits he doesn't even believe what he says!!

:-? ::)

Andrew Bolt admits he doesn't even believe what he says!!

:o

Andrew Bolt admits he doesn't even believe what he says!!

Andrew Bolt admits he doesn't even believe what he says!!

:o

Andrew Bolt admits he doesn't even believe what he says!!

:-? ::)

Andrew Bolt admits he doesn't even believe what he says!!

:o

Andrew Bolt admits he doesn't even believe what he says!!

Andrew Bolt admits he doesn't even believe what he says!!

:o

Andrew Bolt admits he doesn't even believe what he says!!

:-? ::)

Andrew Bolt admits he doesn't even believe what he says!!

:o

Andrew Bolt admits he doesn't even believe what he says!!

Andrew Bolt admits he doesn't even believe what he says!!

:o

Andrew Bolt admits he doesn't even believe what he says!!

:-? ::)

Andrew Bolt admits he doesn't even believe what he says!!

:o

Andrew Bolt admits he doesn't even believe what he says!!