Dyson does believe that currents models forecasting future climate change have limited validity, but that’s a different matter.
***

Let’s see them accurately predict ten years ahead without fudging the data, then they might have some credibility.

***
Umm, this statement demonstrates that you don’t understand the nature of the relevant climatological research, which isn’t designed at present to offer forecasts of such short duration. Where did you get your Ph.D. in physics from anyway?

Let’s see them accurately predict ten years ahead without fudging the data, then they might have some credibility. For example, why have they missed the cooling trend of the last eight years?

Agreement doesn’t make bad science good science.

But, my friends, carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. It is a naturally occurring trace gas essential to life on earth. Simply reducing CO2 levels does nothing to reduce real pollution. It does nothing to clean up our streams and rivers from dangerous mercury contamination. It does nothing to prevent sewage from polluting our drinking supplies. It doesn’t fix holes in the ozone layer, nor does it stop landfill chemicals from leaching into ground water. Even if CO2 levels plummeted in the next 20 years, we’d still have pollution problems.

CO2 is not a pollutant and reducing emission of it does nothing to abate the real pollutants (sulfur, particulates, metals, etc). We can’t afford to waste trillions of dollars needlessly chasing the CO2 fantasy. We are just starting several decades of global cooling, which directly kills twice as many people as warming and many times more indirectly. If we needlessly blow trillions of dollars trying to reduce CO2, we will have significantly reduced our ability to deal with global cooling and all it’s attendant problems (crop failures, reduced food supply, increased energy costs, increased transportation costs and interruptions, etc), all during three decades when global population will increase by 50%!

A cleaner environment can be accomplished through technology, not command and control regulations. Saddling our economy with UN mandates and new layers of federal bureaucracy will only make us poorer and not solve the alleged climate crisis.

No credible scientist disputes global warming or climate change for that matter. The dispute is as follows:

Does 100 PPM (that’s parts per MILLION!!!) of CO2 (a weak greenhouse gas) added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution enough to precipitate global climate change? The evidence increasingly suggests no.

“You gather the evidence and make judgments. Then, at some point in time, the verdict is in.”

What evidence? What debate? The only evidence I have seen in the past several years is that climate change is not anthropological. The only debating going on is in the blogosphere. The MSM won’t touch it. Offers have been made to debate this publically but there are no takers.

If someone wants to refute that global climate change is in progress, how about some articles or links to respected scientific organizations to back it up? How about the NOAA, NISS, NASA, Stanford, MIT or CalTech?

Comments from an old, has-been weatherman or links to nutcase websites don’t cut the mustard.

-Mike

In this same way, an email which has been sent as a “CC” uses no carbon and French Fries are not French. Mr. Friedman’s confusion is understandable though. Many of today’s pressing scientific discussions have perhaps been oversimplified for public consumption. I’m not sure however what a “superpuss pimple” might be.

I don’t believe that man has significantly changed the earth’s temperature (it is hard to measure a 1/2 degree change on a good day), but I won’t discount that man does have some imput into it.

We have 6 BILLION people now putting out CO2 24/7. A century ago we had about 1/3 or 1/4 that number of people, or even less. This contribution is a result of a greater population. What do you want to do about it – kill off enought o strike some kind of balance re the CO2/H20/N2/0 exchanges?

We have a lot of animals today. They produce methane, CO2, and other flatulent gases as a part of their daily life. Do you want to slaughter all of them to stop this gas exchange/production?

Saving rainforests and other large land mass forests/vegetation is commendable and in my opinion, something that should be pursued in a pragmatic manner. However, this would also include certain harvesting techniques that would help prevent forest fires by controlled burns to get rid of the massive underbrush that has helped create the superfires that the western US has experienced in the last 20 years. No doing this has created a tremendous amount of CO2 and other burn gases that result from these terrible superfires (also consume houses/materials, gases, oil, etc).

The coal industry is getting better equipment to control the output of its operations and this should be encouraged by the govt, thru tax-breaks, if necessary. In the long run, we all win.

By the way, where the hell is “global warming?” The world is suffering its worst winter in decades, if not in centuries, and this has all the indications of a climate change trend that the world goes thru on a cyclical schedule. No sunspots in recent years and the temperatures are getting cooler. Could there be a correlation, esp. since the sun is responsible for almost all of earth’s climate and changes?

Don’t dismiss the opposing views that global warming is not manmade (I’ll include a minor influence by man). A volcano puts more garbage gases into the atmosphere, and effects growing sun-light time, more than anything man is doing by using coal, etc. Also, undersea volcanoes are releasing all kinds of hot gases 24/7. These gases have to go somewhere, such as “UP.”

If you have ever done any paleobotany studies of fossils (as I have) you will see that the climate has undergone major changes throughout the whole history of the earth. Mankind was not around at the extinctions of the dinosaurs as well as many of the early fossils (i.e. trilobites, ammonoids, euryptorids, etc) so something else had to be responsible.

Man is a little like a carbuncle on the backside of the earth. A volcano is a superpuss pimple. Which one will give us “change?”