Says Democrat physicist who worked on climate change

Quote:“It's very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people's views on climate change],” he said, in an interview with The Register. “I'm 100 percent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.”

Quote:The physicist and mathematician argues that pollution caused by fossil fuels has been conflated with climate change. “Coal is very unpleasant stuff, and there are problems with coal quite apart from climate,” he said. “Pollution is quite separate to the climate problem: one can be solved, and the other cannot, and the public doesn't understand that.”

He nails it right here. The global warming/climate change alarmists have intentionally intertwined the the two in order to create confusion among people that aren't familiar with the two separate issues in order to drum up support for their cause.

Quote:“To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.”

This is interesting because I posted about a Australian mathematician that claims the reason that the climate models can't explain the 'global warming pause' is because they overstate the influence of carbon dioxide. It appears Dyson shares that opinion.

(10-28-2015 08:04 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Says Democrat physicist who worked on climate change

Quote:“It's very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people's views on climate change],” he said, in an interview with The Register. “I'm 100 percent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.”

Quote:The physicist and mathematician argues that pollution caused by fossil fuels has been conflated with climate change. “Coal is very unpleasant stuff, and there are problems with coal quite apart from climate,” he said. “Pollution is quite separate to the climate problem: one can be solved, and the other cannot, and the public doesn't understand that.”

He nails it right here. The global warming/climate change alarmists have intentionally intertwined the the two in order to create confusion among people that aren't familiar with the two separate issues in order to drum up support for their cause.

Quote:“To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.”

This is interesting because I posted about a Australian mathematician that claims the reason that the climate models can't explain the 'global warming pause' is because they overstate the influence of carbon dioxide. It appears Dyson shares that opinion.

A lot of people don't seem to understand there are two very different issues. They may have heard about ice ages, but not really grasp that the earth has climate change independent of man.

(10-28-2015 09:23 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2015 08:04 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Says Democrat physicist who worked on climate change

Quote:“It's very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people's views on climate change],” he said, in an interview with The Register. “I'm 100 percent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.”

Quote:The physicist and mathematician argues that pollution caused by fossil fuels has been conflated with climate change. “Coal is very unpleasant stuff, and there are problems with coal quite apart from climate,” he said. “Pollution is quite separate to the climate problem: one can be solved, and the other cannot, and the public doesn't understand that.”

He nails it right here. The global warming/climate change alarmists have intentionally intertwined the the two in order to create confusion among people that aren't familiar with the two separate issues in order to drum up support for their cause.

Quote:“To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.”

This is interesting because I posted about a Australian mathematician that claims the reason that the climate models can't explain the 'global warming pause' is because they overstate the influence of carbon dioxide. It appears Dyson shares that opinion.

A lot of people don't seem to understand there are two very different issues. They may have heard about ice ages, but not really grasp that the earth has climate change independent of man.

I agree with your statement, but the left believes 100% that humans are responsible for climate change, when in fact, there is evidence that Mars is also going through climate change.

Interesting. I'd give this gentleman's thoughts far more weight than some of the others Fox and the oil industry come up with to tell us it's all a bunch of hooey.

Good read on Freeman Dyson here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazi...d=all&_r=0

My own thought is what do we stand to lose if we back the wrong horse in this race?

If we follow the advice of the "alarmists" and start doing everything we can to clean things up, and they're wrong, well, we get a cleaner planet out of it to leave to our grandkids' kids.

If we follow the lead of the skeptics and do nothing to clean up our act, and they're wrong, what are we left with? What do we leave for future generations?