SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: koan who wrote (786026)5/22/2014 11:52:26 PM
From: i-node  Respond to of 1583971
 
>> Guys like Einstein live for the science.

>> "The important thing is not to stop questioning." -- Einstein

You and the rest of your bogus consensus have stopped questioning and turned to politics. And while you may not be astute at politics, you are far less astute at science.

I believe you are under the mistaken impression that your support of science gives you the appearance of understanding.

How do you explain the opinion of Freeman Dysan, arguably the original climate scientist, and certainly among the most important:

Then in the late 1970s, he got involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tenn. 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 . . .

“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.”

So, what it intuitive to many of us, seems to be consistent with what the ultimate climate scientist says -- that is, the models are simply not realistic;and in fact, this is precisely what came out of the leaked documents from a number of years ago -- that they were having to "rig" the statistics to get the desired results. How do you explain Dyson's comments in light of his rather obvious stature. Do you just conveniently ignore him? Or, as he said himself, does he "deserve to be heard?"