Keep digging your hole there buddy. My work here is done.
There is nothing more that could be said.
And, again, Dyson does not even pretend to have any actual scientific reasons to reject global warming. He gives none in that bit.
No, besides being insulting, you are the one that quoted a retired physicist giving his opinion, if you have a heart problem you do not consult a brain surgeon.
Nope, pushing an opinion from a non expert is the joke, as it is the reality that I posted what the experts do think about that scientist, I do not think that they are nobodies.
The reality is that Dyson is not respected at all by the ones that would be his peers, if he had bothered to publish his criticism in a climate science journal that would be a start, but not holding my breath for that one.
Dude. I’m going to repeat myself here, because obviously you missed this:
Yes, but you just posted essentially a video blog from a random physicist with no credentials in climatology, no climate research, no published papers in the field, and who is prone to spouting incredibly dumb shit like " Carbon emissions are not a problem because in a few years genetic engineers will develop “carbon-eating trees” that will sequester carbon in soils".
…Oh wait, you quoted that post. I don’t know how you missed that part; it was all of one paragraph long. Dyson, respected as he may be, is not an expert in climatology, is not knowledgeable about the field, and it takes more than “duh, it’s common sense” to overturn decades of study and thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers. To assert otherwise is lunacy. Of course, for some reason, I’m not surprised - you did never answer me when I asked you (based on your statements) if you believed the papers speaking about warming in the ocean were fraudulent. And you also never did get around to telling us all what you thought was meaningful about climategate. And you never did tell us why you thought Dyson’s uneducated, uninformed opinion should matter in the slightest. Somehow, I feel like this will be a mystery for all time.
I honestly can’t add anything to this. This is perfect.
So, no answer? OK.
“Uncontrolled experiment” seems to me that is a nice catchphrase a not related to any scientific concept of an experiment.
Was domesticating horses an uncontrolled experiment?
How about agriculture?
Washing our hands?
For the sake of brevity and not-really-giving-a-fuck-ness I’ll concede defeat on the concept of uncontrolled experiments, as silly as the phrase seems to me. It’s not worth they wearing of the keys on my laptop.
Also, you seem to have forgotten your claim of “bogus numbers”.
Do you concede they aren’t bogus?
Dude! **psikeyhackr **is to JAQs about 911 “mysteries” as you are on the just asking questions department of climate change… I mean, I admit I would be curious to see a fight of the unmovable object vs the irresistible force of ignorant points but I had to warn you. 
At the very beginning they probably were.
But there is the little matter of repeatability. It could always be retried with another horse and another and another.
How many planets do we have to experiment with? But then we just happen to live on this one and getting a few tons of mass to Mars is quite expensive.
It gives a whole new meaning to UNCONTROLLED.
psik
It’s not an “attack”, it’s simply a factual description of Dyson’s lack of expertise in one particular technical field.
If you had bothered to look at Dyson’s research record in a little more detail than just petulantly shouting “Is TOO a climate scientist, is TOO is TOO!”, you would have found this out for yourself. Although Dyson briefly worked on a statistical study of carbon-cyle inputs and outputs at the short-lived Institute for Energy Analysis in the 1970s, some 35 years ago, he has never worked on climate modeling. In Dyson’s own words,
I repeat: Freeman Dyson, brilliant and accomplished scientist though he unquestionably is, is not a climate science researcher and does not have the requisite research background to evaluate the technical aspects of quantitative models involving atmospheric thermodynamics or climate systems.
Moreover, Dyson himself has never claimed to have any such expertise. It’s the anti-science “skeptics” who attempt to parlay his brief and long-ago work with the Oak Ridge database into an aura of professional competence as a climate scientist.
The other option (to CO2) is?
Keep digging that hole.
I expect the consumer economy to totally crash in this century. The stupidity will not be stopped.
Our so called economists can’t even do the algebra for Demand Side Depreciation.
http://www.spectacle.org/1199/wargame.html
psik
Sorry, we can’t, Dyson is already in that hole.
Indeed, many examples of Dyson mistakes are there, particularly this one:
I.e., you’ve run out of plausible excuses for citing Freeman Dyson as a source of climate science expertise, and are hoping that nobody will notice that the person digging himself into a hole is you.
OK when you see that level of wrong, game over. Seriously, if you see that statement, and do not know why it is wrong, you have no business discussing climate, climate science, global warming, and especially not trying to put down a scientist.
That GIGO quotes something that wrong, and doesn’t realize what he is doing, it’s truly sad. All the worse, it’s done to try and say Dyson is stupid and wrong.
Priceless.
Again dodging the question.
You’re free to have your expectations.
Interesntingly, economy is a good analogy to climate, but simpler.
If the some very best mathematical/statistical/modelling minds of the world, with clear and humongous financial stakes, with many chances to actually test out their theories, with thousands of examples, still cannot model do something as “simple”, you can imagine that a much more complex system, with several unknown/unquantified interaction, such as climate will be even trickier.
This comes across as more of a desperate attempt at intimidation and bluff than a rational argument. It sounds as though you just picked one of Tobis’s statements at random and hoped if you sneered at it hard enough, everyone else would be afraid to question your sneering.
That’s not how scientific debate works. If you think the statement you quoted is wrong, feel free to critique and refute it on technical grounds. You’re essentially just pointing at it and squealing that it has some undefined sort of “wrongness cooties”, and so anybody else who ventures to touch it will have “wrongness cooties” too. That’s a playground taunt, not a scientific rebuttal.
The fact is that while there definitely is some overlap of absorption spectra between water vapor and CO2, there’s a crucial spectral band where they don’t overlap, which is important for radiation absorption by CO2. So Dyson is indeed wrong or at best very misleadingly sloppy when he claims that “the effect of carbon dioxide on radiation transport is unimportant because the transport of thermal radiation is already blocked by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor”.
Honestly, FXMastermind, your attempts to use rhetorical bluster to impose a false image of Dyson as a credible expert in climate science are simply not working. If mainstream climate science is so catastrophically wrong as you claim, shouldn’t you be able to find established researchers in the field who propose better hypotheses, rather than relying on vague unconvincing speculations from an octogenarian nonspecialist who plumes himself on his “heretical”, contrarian, anti-“establishment” views?
I’m not going to refute or ague with anyone that is at that level of ignorance. It’s that bad. especially some blog commentary that is YouTube level of stupid.
Only In It For The Gold: Dyson Exegesis
No, the stupid have to back up their idiocy, I don’t have to waste a minute countering that level of wrong. And if you don’t already know why that bolded part is wrong, then you need to educate yourself. It’s basic physics of CO2.
What Dyson is quoted a saying on that page is, of course, 100% factual.
A Many-colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the Universe
By Freeman J. Dyson
If you don’t know why it’s true, you have no business in a climate debate. Much less trying to claim you know more than freeman Dyson about the physics of atmospheric chemistry and CO2 absorption bands.
I think an Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences expert from the University of Wisconsin has the business to declare what Dyson said to be wrong, it is you who is the ignorant still about who is an expert.
:dubious: Following up a suspected desperate and ignorant bluff with another refusal to explain your objection also comes across looking like a desperate and ignorant bluff. Mere contradiction doesn’t constitute an argument, to paraphrase Monty Python.
The basic physics of CO2 that I just described explains why it’s not true that the importance of its radiation absorption is limited in the way that Dyson claims, or that its absorption must be “blocked” by absorption by water vapor.