Oh yea, another thread, but this time

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by LSUpride123, Apr 6, 2013.

  1. LSUpride123

    LSUpride123 PureBlood

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    33,702
    Likes Received:
    16,644
    we can review the words of one of the worlds smartest! Before you respond, this doesn't attack climate change. It only looks at the methods we use to make claims on the future.


    Who? Well to be honest, I didn't know much about the guy, but the guy is Freeman Dyson. You can Google him if you like. Smart guy non the less. Anyway, I know of the guy simply from me searching the web on space "things". Also read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prometheus


    In the article below, I believe his opinion of the climate change this is spot on. I should note that if you watch the fist video, around the 4 min mark he talks about new measurements to be applied. Very good stuff to "really" understanding the climate.


    "I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic," Dyson said.

    That research, which involved scientists from many disciplines, was based on experimentation. The scientists studied such questions as how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with plant life and the role of clouds in warming.

    But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, 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.

    In fact, there’s more solid evidence for the beneficial effects of CO-2 than the negative effects, he said. So why does the public hear only one side of this debate? Because the media do an awful job of reporting it.


    http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/04/climatologists_are_no_einstein.html
     
    gyver likes this.
  2. gyver

    gyver Rely on yourself not on others.

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2011
    Messages:
    2,001
    Likes Received:
    717
    Climate change is bs. Another scam to raise revenue. Concocted by the government, fabricated by scientists and paid for by taxpayers. The scientists only go along with it for the grant money.
     
  3. Geezer Squid

    Geezer Squid Freshman

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    3
    Researchers are in the Business of getting grant money. In today's world if they report there is no problem, the money dries up immediately. Report a problem and more money will flow in. As a great American once said, "Follow the money".
     
    gyver likes this.

Share This Page