But you cited the wicked, debbil-worshiping Science as your source. Which, as every true Conservative knows, is a Lib-ur-el (read “worse than Communist”) propaganda-thingee.
So it don’t count.
Why is RealClimate consensus, but Dyson not? By definition, it’s not a scientific consensus as long as there are prominent scientists who disagree. Here is a list of 800 peer reviewed articles that are skeptical of various aspects of AGW: Popular Technology.net: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism The often-repeated claim that 97 percent of scientists support “the consensus” is based on a Web survey with fewer 100 self-selected participants.
There is an extended discussion of the advantages of economic growth in the article I cited before: The Question of Global Warming | Freeman Dyson | The New York Review of Books Dyson calls it DICE (Dynamic Model of Climate and the Economy). The number one reason I don’t believe in AGW is because it is led by people who would say anything to advance an anti-growth agenda. John P. Holdren, Obama’s scientist advisor, was a heavy duty ice age monger back in the 1970s, just like Steven Schneider. So he can do cooling, he can do warming, whatever advances the cause. Check out this graphic: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/time_gw_covers_large.jpg
By this “logic,” we should ask paranormal researchers if ghosts are real.
Check this thread and see what dopers thought about PopTech and his sorry list.
:rolleyes:
“Watts up” is also one of the most pathetic citations you can make.
No, unless we completely destroy what little is left of American industry by protecting the environment, which will slaughter what slender profit margin still exists. It’s us or nature - whose side are you on???
(I don’t believe this; I’m just trying to show how comically bozotic the reasoning is. Why, you’d almost think the conservatives are the fearful ones…until you realize that it’s a cynical argument fed to the gullible to keep them happy about the huge profitability and low responsibility of big business.)
You did not check the video uh?
Incidentally, the experts you check are magicians or psychologists that do properly explain how humans come up with “paranormal” phenomenons.
As for Dyson, when his results are clearly based on erroneous assumptions, it is safe to say that his solutions will also be off base.
I forgot to add: Nordhaus, the economist that made/works with DICE, that Dyson claims to be using, is frequently mentioned as a global warming skeptic; even though he has been advocating an internationally harmonized $30 to $50 /ton carbon tax be adopted. He emphasizes building an international framework for carbon taxation in case increases as new information warrants.
This is BTW a constant for denier sources nowadays, when finally good citations appear on this subject, the citations turn out to be twisted to say that they agree with the overall claims of the deniers, and this is more notorious when people of some expertise **appear **to defend the anti-science position.
It does not matter that people with more experience like Pat Michaels, Lomborg or Norhaus agree with the science and even report that indeed AGW is a problem. Unfortunately some of those experts continue to play to (and get paid by the) denier media and politicians to continue to get those experts to throw bones to the deniers that sound vaguely like the anti science they peddle.
The deniers think that they will continue to fool all. Well, at least they do fool a good chunk of the American people.
I have no interest in the paranormal. My point was that people whose livelihoods depend on a certain belief can’t be considered objective on the subject: priests on Catholicism, therapists on psychotherapy, paranormal researchers on ghosts, and AGW researchers on AGW. Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph has been repeatedly exposed as a hoax, a “trick” to “hide the decline,” as the Climategate e-mails put it. Do we ask him, and only him, if the accusations are true? That’s basically what the academic committees investigating Climategate did.
First, Dyson didn’t have economic argument. Now we can’t trust him because the economist he uses has proposed a carbon tax. Am I keeping up?
Pat Michaels? The guy Ben Santer wants to, “beat the crap out of”, according to the Climategate e-mails? He’s been accepted as a member of the consensus in good standing? Well, then you might be interested in this: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228291/dog-ate-global-warming/patrick-j-michaels The gold standard of science is the “reproducible result.” CRU chief Phil Jones does not believe in science: “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
As it was not only committees in academia that exonerated the scientists, I will have to say you are still off base and unreliable.
Yes, that is clear, Dyson can not be trusted as he misunderstand what the DICE guy actually said.
But there are other reasons why Dyson should be dismissed.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/27/npr-on-the-media-dyson-romm/
Good enough to be called to congress and to attempt to increase the doubts on how bad it could be (this is basically what guys that are still involved in the science but working for misleading outfits like the Heritage Institute and oil companies are reduced to)
And still he got the crap beat by Ben Santer:
As the investigation showed, most of the requests made with the freedom of information act were rejected by the officials in charge, they did agree more often than not that the requests were frivolous or silly.
And that was even before he was exonerated not only by his academic peers, but also by the British Government.
They seem to be able to team up all the same, just like the Nazis and the Communists in WWII. Iran is currently arming the Taliban, which has the same ultra-Sunni ideology as al-Qaeda. In any case, Iran has its own proxy terrorist groups, namely Hamas (Sunni Palestinian) and Hezbollah (Shiite Lebanese). They don’t even need a real terrorist group. They could use their own agents and then just deny everything, like when the Libyans blew up that Pan Am flight over Scotland. With any luck, this is an academic exercise. I expect Israel to hit Iran before long. Obama has already authorized the transfer of the specialized bombs they need, according to the Wikileaks documents.
Cite (if you put in National Review, dont expect to be taken seriously) ?
By the way Nazis and Communists spent far more energy and time fighting each other than being allied, IIRC Soviet Union was the key to beating Nazi Germany. You might want to think your examples through a little more.
Since when is Hamas connected in any way with Iran? (Apart from being swarthy I mean. And speaking a language you dont understand).
This thread has gone far off-topic, and it’s no longer related to the recent elections. I’m locking the thread. People who are interested in the subject should start a thread in Great Debates. The subjects of climate change, fear, and terrorism probably deserve separate threads, not one big confusing one.