“Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition”

Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, ‘skeptic.’
Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition.
Current global warming alarm hardly represents a
plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and
escalation of claims does not make it more plausible.
Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over
20 years makes the case even less plausible as does
the evidence from climategate and other instances of
overt cheating.

– Dr. Richard Lindzen  Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT

 

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

121 Responses to “Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition”

  1. Tony Duncan says:

    having read all the suspect emails from climate-gate as well as the analysis in denier websites, I would like to see Lindzen’s specifics about cheating. After all scientists who are found to have cheated are subject to severe penalties and they should be investigated and suffer the consequences
    But I agree, and I am glad we can all finally call you ACC deniers

    • You do realize that this coming winter is going to wipe out the last remaining reality deniers.

    • Sundance says:

      Tony here a few possibilities (my guesses) as to where the cheating may be. In the recent Congressional hearings on climate Lindzen shot down the assertion by Chairman Baird that thermometers have been a reliable measure of T. None of the other three panel members Meehl, Cullen or Cicerone came to Baird’s defense on the issue. Baird was visibly upset/agitated. In fact Meehl later also used the phrase “thermometer problem” after Lindzen had brought it up. I am reading the tea leaves and speculating that the thermometer record will receive much more attention in 2011.

      The other cheating area could be the feedback foolery demonstrated in the climate models which ignores aerosols and clouds. We shall see in 2011.

      Unlike you I found the Climategate emails disturbing. I have two relatives who are published researchers working in climate science. My relatives are polar opposites of the anti-science mindset that was exhibited in the Climategate emails. The media has pushed the “just because they’re assholes doesn’t mean they’re not good scientists”, but my life experience has included dealing with plenty of assholes and I have found none that I could trust. Climategate took me to the point where I wouldn’t believe a word these Climategate scientists said unless they were under oath and where they could be cross-examined.

      • Sundance says:
        November 20, 2010 at 11:59 pm

        Cicerone

        I thought it was telling that at one point Cierone said of Lindzen, “I don’t understand what he is saying”.

        But then Tony, he understood…… Tony is smarter than Lindzen, and everybody even.

    • Hey, Tony, there you are!

      You only pick the top notch scientists to shoot at I see. First Freeman Dyson. Now Richard Lindzen.

      You show how smart you really are!

      And you don’t have a problem with deleting emails that are to be used in FOI requests. Or deleting data. Or splicing two differing graphs together then giving the appearance it was one graph. You are so right, everything is just fine with ClimateGate! Tony, truly, you’re mind is a staggering entity. How could we ever hope to equal you?

    • Tony Duncan says:
      November 20, 2010 at 9:52 pm

      having read all the suspect emails from climate-gate as well as the analysis in denier websites, I would like to see Lindzen’s specifics about cheating.

      You couldn’t see cheating? No matter what anybody said you are going to tell yourself nothing dishonest happened. So go on your merry ignorant way.

      What’s funniest, Tony, is that Phil Jones contemplated suicide because of what was happening to him from ClimateGate—-but you say nothing was going on that should have made him feel that way—nice Einstein, nice. How staggering is your intellect, truly, how staggering.

      • YOU DIDN’T REPLY TO THIS TONY DUNCAN

        YOU DIDN’T REPLY TO THIS TONY DUNCAN

        YOU DIDN’T REPLY TO THIS TONY DUNCAN

        I put it in triplicate because maybe you overlooked it or something.

      • YOU DIDN’T REPLY TO THIS TONY DUNCAN

        YOU DIDN’T REPLY TO THIS TONY DUNCAN

        YOU DIDN’T REPLY TO THIS TONY DUNCAN

        More triplicate because maybe you continue to overlooked it or something. I’ll get your attention at some point.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        I didn’t reply to your posting the Jones considered suicide?

        Or about Zichichi.
        if it is Zichichi, I would want his actual explanation and then the responses from climate scientists. Maybe Zichichi is like Dyson, and he isn’t interested int he details. Unlike you I don’t accept the truth just because it comes from an authority figure. I want an explanation and I want to hear both sides before I make up my mind. Actually that is why I come to this site (among others) because I don’t just accept the theory without checking it against people who disagree.
        Amazing that you keep projecting this bizarre idea of my superior intellect.
        If Zichichi discovered anti matter then he totally made my personal heros day. Dirac predicted Anti matter!
        And I am sorry I don;t have time to reply to every attack made on me on this site. I can’t do everything by myself.
        And i really have no intention of upsetting you. As I have said repeatedly I have no interest in trying to convinve anyone here of anything, therefore I don’t care what you think or how you villify me. So it is really a waste of emotion. Steve doesn’t seem to get upset with me, and I bet he would agree that it is a waste to get angry at me.
        BTW would you mind replying to me about those accurate quotes of Dyson. Listen to the audio and get back to me.

      • Tony Duncan says:
        November 21, 2010 at 5:30 am

        Maybe Zichichi is like Dyson, and he isn’t interested int he details.

        YOU ARE LYING ABOUT DYSON AGAIN

      • ony Duncan says:
        November 21, 2010 at 5:30 am

        If Zichichi discovered anti matter

        You think that is made up ???????????

      • Tony Duncan says:
        November 21, 2010 at 5:30 am

        I don;t have time to reply to every attack made on me on this site

        They aren’t attacks. And you still have not verified your Freeman Dyson “quote”.

      • Tony Duncan says:
        November 21, 2010 at 5:30 am

        Listen to the audio and get back to me.

        You provided no link.

      • Tony Duncan says:
        November 21, 2010 at 5:30 am

        the responses from climate scientists.

        Climate scientists like Spencer, Christy, Lindzen, Ball?

      • Tony Duncan says:
        November 21, 2010 at 5:30 am

        Dirac predicted Anti matter!,/i>

        Huh, just him?

      • You know Tony, the more time goes by the more I see you don’t know what you’re doing. I hope you’re better at your juggling than this.

      • still waiting for that link Tony. I thought for sure you’d rush to protect your reputation

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Amino,

        calling me a lier is an attack. PLEASE don’t go into some bizarre Omnologos explanation (or was that Phil?) about how it really ISN’T an attack because I am really lying. At some point mindless repetition of that sort of thing stops being funny even to me. And when this stops being funny I lose interest.
        Of course I could rant about how Steve DELETED my comment that detailed the specific places in the interview where Dyson said pretty much everything that I said he said.
        I could go on and on about the fraud. this PROVES that Steve is part of a conspiracy to prevent the world from knowing what Dyson really thinks. Blah blah blah. But maybe what I will do is go over the interview ONE MORE TIME (this will be #3 if you are counting).

    • Tony Duncan says:
      November 20, 2010 at 9:52 pm

      having read all the suspect emails from climate-gate as well as the analysis in denier websites, I would like to see Lindzen’s specifics about cheating.

      It is unbelievable that you don’t have a problem with what was revealed from ClimateGate. This says a lot about you. This is one of those ‘teachable moments’, hey Tony.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        I never said I didn’t have a problem with the climategate emails.
        I think there are quite a few things in them that are disturbing. but they make sense considering the political context of scientists feeling they are being attacked by fanatics who are not interested in real science, only twisting any information that they could get into something that they could say showed ACC was not real.
        What I said was that there is no evidence of fraud in the emials, and no evidence of perverting the peer review process, only lame talk about doing so in one case regarding research that was considered by many to be unproffesional.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve you forget we already had that conversation and you haven’t provided any scientific source saying manhattan would be underwater in 2008. Only a second hand account and no written statement to that effect And we had that long piece about how Hansen said that 5 meters was as likely as the IPCC predictions of less than a meter, which we have established Hansen said specifically was an unscientific unsupported assertion.
        So if you are talking about REAL science those just don’t cut it.

    • Here you go Tony, here’s something from Antonino Zichichi —–(para) “models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view”.

      I know Antonino Zichichi is just the president of the World Federation of Scientists, and he’s just the discoverer of nuclear antimatter, and discoverer of the first example of a baryonic particle having a quark of the 3rd family, and he only developed a device to determine, with 70 picoseconds precision, the time of flight of subnuclear particles.

      So he could never understand how a co2 molecule interacts with radiated energy in the atmosphere, isn’t that right Tony? No wait, Don’t answer, please, we already know the answer. Don’t crush us by answering with your deep insight. It’s inevitable, the answer is:

      Tony’s mind trumps it all!

      Antonino Zichichi could never be smart as you are Tony. So go gentle in your criticism of him, please, let him down easy.

      http://www.ccsem.infn.it/em/zichichi/short_bio.html

      • Hi Tony

        you didn’t reply to this.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Zichichini is not a climate scientist. he very likely is a friend of Dyson’s, who as I pointed out in his own words, is not an expert on climate change. They probably discuss this sort of thing over Earl Grey and Espresso.
        they are also both quite old. that doesn’t disqualify them form being right. but it is common for the old guard not to understand new sciences

      • Tony Duncan says:
        November 21, 2010 at 6:05 am

        They probably discuss this sort of thing over Earl Grey and Espresso.

        My God, the more you talk the more you reveal the level you are at. Couldn’t find any condescension in that comment, nope, not from you Tony. Ya, I’m sure they sit there shooting the breeze over a tea. Man, you’ve got an imagination, gotta hand it to you.

        Speaking of climate scientists what you think of Spencer and Lindzen? Or are they just more coffee achievers?

        And oh ya, got that link? The more I read your comments the more I see I need to listen to this interview myself instead of getting it after being processed through your paradigm.

      • Ya, you know, you must be right, because looking at Antonino Zichichi’s background how could he ever know how a co2 molecule would react to radiation? You’re a sharp one. You catch all those things that fall through the cracks. Gosh.

    • truthsword says:

      I have seen example after example of temperature adjustments that only go one direction. That is nothing but cheating.

      • truthsword says:
        November 21, 2010 at 1:40 am

        That is nothing but cheating.

        I agree with you.

        Anyone who reads the ClimateGate emails will see cheating. But if you don’t want to see the truth you can always see some other truth. Some truth is more equal than others.

      • Almost every single USHCN record I have looked at shows the same pattern. There is no question that the adjustments are biased in a way which creates the appearance of warming.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        I have read the climate gate emails and all I see is scientists, angry at deniers, who they are convinced (and have good reason to believe from past experience) that they are being hounded and having their time wasted by frivolous FOI requests. I certainly read things that are not very nice, and some things that are unprofessional, but I have yet to see a scientific paper that has been withdrawn or condemned as fraud because of anything in the emails. The emails prove that the scientists are totally incompetent at one thing very clearly. And that is conspiring to prevent anti ACC articles from being published. they are incompetent at any sort of conspiracy, and they realize that they are involved in a political battle and reacted in some cases not like scientists because of that. Of course the history of science is filled with brilliant scientists being petty and even destructive towards others.
        But please show me any published literature that has been denounced because the emails showed that its conclusions were fraudulently arrived at.
        ONE paper that is all I ask.

      • Tony Duncan says:
        November 21, 2010 at 5:38 am

        I have read the climate gate emails

        You’ve read all of them?

      • So there’s nothing to see in ClimateGate, right Tony?

        That’s the party line, isn’t it? Just move along, nothing to see there. Phil Jones wanted to kill himself over nothing, brilliant Tony, just brilliant.

      • Tony Duncan says:
        November 21, 2010 at 5:38 am

        But please show me any published literature that has been denounced because the emails showed that its conclusions were fraudulently arrived at.
        ONE paper that is all I ask.

        The corruption revealed in ClimateGate isn’t enough, right sir? You want more. You aren’t able, or don’t want to, comprehend the corruption you see in the emails. The truth is, if you can’t see corruption in the emails there will be nothing else that will convince you.

        Maybe you can close your eyes to what ClimateGate shows, but most people can’t.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        This event, which again you are only giving one side of, indicates PR acumen. That has absolutely no bearing on the science.

        And the oregon petition. Are you still holding onto that?
        How many climate scientists signed it? So let’s say 50,000 “scientists” out of at least 1 million in the country. That is 5%. Even so science is not measured by popularity contests. It is measured in the peer review process. Next year when all the ACC fraud is exposed the peer review process will publish all the truth about climate and all will be well again.

      • you continue to divert from what is really being talked about.

        BTW, got that link?

      • Tony Duncan says:
        November 21, 2010 at 6:01 am

        Even so science is not measured by popularity contests.,/i>

        Great Tony. So then there is no consensus among scientists.

      • Tony Duncan says:
        November 21, 2010 at 6:01 am

        It is measured in the peer review process.

        No problems found in the peer review process? And there was nothing about peer review in the ClimateGate emails? You say you read them, so did you come across anything about that in there? Just wondering.

      • did you watch the video below Tony? It’s very short.

      • Tony Duncan says:
        November 21, 2010 at 6:01 am

        And the oregon petition. Are you still holding onto that?

        If 31,000 scientists had signed a petition on the side of global warming there would never be the end of people screaming from the housetops about. Look at how much noise was made over the 700 which turned out to be 39.

        But, go ahead, talk it away. Tell people there’s nothing to see there.

      • mmmmmmm, still looking for that link………

      • Tony Duncan says:

        If the temp adjustments have been fraudulent that will come out very easily and hasten the downfall of ACC.
        Amino Don’t you READ what I postI I don’t know how to give links in iTunes U. But there is a comment I posted with all the information you need on it It has the times and the direct quotes from Dyson. Please do me a favor and don’t make me hold your hand to get that interview and listen to it and note the quotes that I took the time to type out for you.
        I swear, sometimes I don’t feel appreciated enough around here.

        BTW I am STILL waiting for the peer reviewed article to be denounced by Nature or Science or any of the other major climate journals because of the FRAUD all of you see but I don’t in climate-gate.
        See the phrase is called “the proof is in the pudding.” NOT “the proof is in the foaming at the mouth hysteria” that it is fraud because I SAY SO!!
        If there is fraud it should be rescinded and the author punished appropriately, like that prof at Harvard was punished a few months ago for something WAY less important or flagrant

      • huh, I don’t see the exact quote and I don’t see a link

        so, is there really a link?

      • hey, you don’t have a problem with splicing graphs from 2 different sources together that up to you Tony

      • Tony Duncan says:
        November 21, 2010 at 6:15 am

        Please do me a favor and don’t make me hold your hand to get that interview and listen to it and note the quotes that I took the time to type out for you.

        You can quit the condescension and just give the link

      • I just looked through your comments again. There is not a link in any of them

      • Tony Duncan says:
        November 21, 2010 at 6:15 am

        “the proof is in the foaming at the mouth hysteria”

        Ya, Tony, Phil Jones was thinking about killing himself over “foaming at the mouth hysteria”

      • maybe you have a link to a transcript—do you at least have that?

      • stevengoddard says:
        November 21, 2010 at 6:18 am

        It would be almost impossible to prove fraud. More like a series of compounded confirmation bias errors.

        Confirmation bias is not what he wants. He wants something easier to see. This is why I say if he can’t see the obvious corruption in the emails he won’t be able to see it elsewhere. Confirmation bias would probably look like standard procedure.

      • truthsword says:

        I agree, if you can’t read the climategate emails and see the problems, you have divorced yourself from reality.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        you have documented dozens of cases of fraud here. How can you know say “series of compounded confirmation bias errors.”

    • John Edmondson says:

      If you want cheating try Kathmandu, a classic GISS “adjustment” making a cooling trend into a warming trend.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/11/more-gunsmoke-this-time-in-nepal/

      In the real world this is called fraud.

  2. Tony Duncan says:

    Wow,

    So much love. I feel touched.
    So we are agreed, by next spring the entire facade of ACC will come tumbling down, all the corruption and fraud will be exposed and climate science will be turned back over to real scientists, and the truth that there is no appreciable effect on the climate form CO2 will become the reigning theory.
    I still think we should have an office pool on who the first name brand Warmist scientist that will buckle and come begging for mercy.

    • How long do you think it will take before individuals start bargaining for leniency by spilling the beans on their cohorts?

    • Tony Duncan says:

      by next spring the entire facade

      Global warming lies have been going on for decades. You must be new to the game. You also must be unable to recognize what is truth and what is lie. You have no problem with graphs from 2 different sources spliced together to make 1 graph.

      You also seem to have trouble grasping that 31,000 scientists signed the Oregon Petition. You’d rather stick to those tricky ClimateGate scientists instead. You see, this reveals something about you Tony. and apparently you are liking what it is revealing.

      Here is some admitted lying that was done at the infamous 1988 political gathering in Washington, but I’m sure, Tony, you’ll say it was all on the up and up, no dishonesty to see here:

      • Don’t look for public admission by ClimateGate scientists Tony. Just look for more political whitewash. Everyone knows that’s what’s going to happen.

        But when the second round of ClimateGate emails are released we’ll have to see how TomnyDuncan scrambles to cover for that dishonesty, tricks, and intimidation revealed in emails from “scientists”.

    • thanks for the cute clown act Tony, but don’t quit your day job

  3. sunsettommy says:

    Tony Duncan,

    “Listen to the audio and get back to me.”

    Still no link.

    When is that coming?

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Are you DYSLEXIC? If so then I understand and will make sure to psot everything three times like you so thoughtfully did for me
      Amino. That might explain your inability to read my very precise notes and the ITunes U interview of Dyson by Yale University.
      Since you are so obsessed by this go over my comments, and find the one where I took the trouble to Relisten to the interview just for you and to take notes to save you the time that you made me waste.
      In case you don’t know iTunes is this newfangled source fo music, podcasts, movies, and academic programming. I thnk you can download the program for free, or if you don’t have it maybe you can get one of your many friends on this site to download the interview and see if the quotes I gave at the specific times are accurate or not.
      But please try not to get upset when you listen to it. I don’t want to feel responsible for anything that migh happen to you becuase of something I did.

  4. Tony Duncan says:

    Steve,
    I think it might be good for someone to tell Amino not to read my posts. they are obviously very disturbing. If you think it best I will stop posting. He apparantly has a fetish about lying. Could someone help him find the comment I posted with the notes on the Dyson interview on iTunes U? I don’t get a notification, and I don’t have time to go looking for it!

  5. Ella Cherington says:

    @amino acids: 30 posts out of 47. My goodness, you have been busy!

  6. Now Tony claims his comment with the link was deleted

    Tony Duncan says:
    November 21, 2010 at 5:01 pm

    I could rant about how Steve DELETED my comment that detailed the specific places in the interview where Dyson said pretty much everything that I said he said.

    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/20/skepticism-implies-doubts-about-a-plausible-proposition/#comment-14422

  7. Tony Duncan says:

    OK Amino Here goes ONE MORE TIME and you better thank me when you comment on this. Although I am rather pissed that my last comment got lost (or was it diabolically deleted?). it was quite funny. One of my better efforts and would have made this whole back and forth much more enjoyable for me. Let me see. What did I say that got your panties in a twist? Something like Dyson says he isn’t an expert and doesn’t know much about climate science.

    1:00 from the intro “While he readily admits he is not a climate expert, Dyson insists that his skeptical point of view needs to be heard.”

    2:00 “I am not so much interested in global warming…I don’t claim to be an expert, I never did”
    2:20 “I find many of the claims to be absurd. Not that I know better”

    2:35 “I feel a lot of strange stuff that I don’t understand, but that’s about it”

    2:50 “my objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I don’t know much, but it is rather against the way those people behave, and the kind of intolerance to criticism”

    3:30. After long very low key rant about hockey stick “I don’t claim to have examined the data myself”
    6:00 after interviewer asks if he is aware of responses from others about hockey stick. “I simply don’t know… So I could be wrong about that”

    6:30-50 Interviewer “So you haven’t refuted any particular assertion ” ” No…the difference between me and the experts, is that I have a much wider view of the subject.”

    7:10. “I WAS involved in climate studies about 30 years ago”

    12:30 responding to interviewer saying that Astronomy models are MUCH better now than 30 years ago, why not climate models? “Enormous improvement in observational cosmology , there has not been anything like the same improvement in observational climate studies.”

    13:30 “I got out of the field then, it left me with a bad taste”

    13:50 re climate models. “I haven’t examined them in detail, but I know roughly what’s in them”

    29: interviewer “I guess my question is that for example if you were to say to one of the people at GFDL explained your objection to their failure to include changes in plants or the way they model clouds, would they say ‘Oh my goodness we’re fools, we haven’t thought of this’ or would they be able to convince you that they have thought of these things, and here’s what we are doing about them and let up show you” Dyson “Well. it it… I’m Not… (20 seconds of emptiness). I guess one thing I don’t want to do is spend all my time arguing this business. I am not the person to do this. I have two great disadvantages. I am 85 years old. Obviously I am an old fuddy-duddy. so I have no credibility. Secondly, I am not an expert and that is not going to change. I am not going to make myself an expert. What I do think I have is a better judgement.”

    40:30 “the ideal protagonist I am still looking for. I will do the job if nobody else shows up. But I regard it as a duty not a pleasure.”

    there we go. Get Dyson to read this blog and have him back you guys up on all the proof you have of this fraud.

    the interview is interesting and he brings up interesting questions. But he makes assertions that are just assertions, he admits that he has not talked with the scientists involved to respond to his objections. It appears that he is presenting a totally one sided view and is not interested in really engaging the scientists who believe in ACC about these issue, even though he thinks it is a terrible mistake.
    The interviewer knows nothing about these specific issues so he can only ask questions, and there is no follow up with climate scientists about Dyson’s objections.

    But at least Dyson is not dishonest about what he actually knows. He doesn’t pretend to know more than climate scientists, but he believes that lack of knowledge in irrelevent.

    and BTW Dirac didn’t really predict anti matter. he basically single handedly invented it. Look it up. Why I LOVE Dirac is because I developed a post relativistic theory based on Mach’s principle when I was 15 or 16. My physics teacher didn’t have a clue. so as a freshmen in college I explained it to my grad student advisor and he ripped me a new one for thinking I could know ANYTHING about relativity when I didn’t know basic physics. after dropping out of physics, 10 years later I discovered an explanation of one of Dirac’s musings that was almost exactly the same as mine based on similar premises, with all sorts of math I didn’t understand.

    • Your comments have not been deleted and they aren’t in the spam folder.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve ,
        I think you know I was not seriously suggesting you deleted my comment. I was just responding to amino’s hysterical assertions of my blatant dishonesty. I did post it and did take an awful lot of time redownloading the interview (twice now because the first time it was in a backup drive that wasn’t easily accessible) and going over the whole thing to note exactly where Dyson said what Amino accused me of lying about.
        I do appreciate that you allow people with any views on this site.

    • Got a link? You still haven’t given a link so what you claim can be verified. So is it part of your comedy act to intentionally not give a link?

      • Tony Duncan says:

        OK,
        I am going to hold your hand. Don’t let go and make sure that you look both ways before we cross the street.
        iTunes U. it is NOT a website, so I can’t give you the URL. if I could have done so I would. I swear. Really. I am not lying.
        Where were we?
        Oh yes iTunes U. you need to have iTunes. if you don’t have it download and learn how to use it.
        open iTunes
        go to iTunes Store.
        Go to the iTunes U tab between “audiobooks” and “ping”.
        Go to the search box on the upper right hand corner.
        type in Dyson yale.
        That will return the file.
        push the “get” button on the right side
        Listen to interview
        get back to me about where I lied.

      • Why persist to not give a link? Does it make you feel superior?

      • “my objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I don’t know much, but it is rather against the way those people behave, and the kind of intolerance to criticism”

        This quote is not about the science of ‘global warming’. Some commentor at WUWT named villabollo/mecago try to say this quote is about global warming science too.

        The quote is about ‘global warming’ propaganda.

      • you may not have lied, you may be incompetent.

      • it looks like incompetence—which i misinterpreted as being lying. I have to lower my standards I usually assume about people. Then I will see where you are coming from.

    • What you claimed is that Freeman Dyson has not paid any attention to climate science for 30 years. I don’t find that in this.

    • So you’re saying because Freeman Dyson says’ he’s not one of the experts that means he is saying he doesn’t know what he is talking about? He is talking about all the climate modellors when he is talking about “experts”.

      Did you see he said he has a “better judgment”? The reason he said that is because he has stayed a\way from the world of climate models and done work in the field, in observation. That is why he has a better judgment than the modellors.

      But it appears your point of view is exactly what he said people will say of him. You think he doesn’t know what he is doing when in actuality he is better suited to talk about “global warming” than the “experts”.

      Now that I’ve explained it to you you Tony do you see how you were wrong? You saw what you wanted to see. You didn’t see what was actually being said.

      But, oh ya, Dyson is an old fuddy duudy.

  8. Freeman Dyson, on observation over computer programm:

  9. Freeman Dyson on climate models:

  10. Tony Duncan says:

    Amino,
    my goodness. What he says is that he isn’t interested in the details, that he hasn’t studied climate science for over thirty years.
    I go to all this trouble have you call me a lier and disembler and basically a coward and THAT is it? that is all I get for my efforts?
    I give quite a few distinct quotes where he says he does NOT KNOW ANYTHING specific. Then I quote where he says he has not been involved in any climate studies for over 30 years.
    Now THAT is funny.

    • settle down

      you need to control your thoughts

      You are seeing what you want to see when you look at what Freeman Dyson said, and you are hearing what you want to hear.

      You overlooked where he said he has a better judgment. If you had not overlooked it you would have had to stop to think about what he meant and you would have interpreted what he said better. Instead you fell into the trap of being weak minded and saying of him what he already knows would be said of him. But then that’s easier to do, isn’t it?

    • Tony Duncan says:
      November 21, 2010 at 8:35 pm

      my goodness. What he says is that he isn’t interested in the details,

      He says he’s not interested in the details of the propaganda. He doesn’t say he’s not interested in the science of co2 in the atmosphere.

      You have to take the time to think about these things. It’s all there very clear. To assume the things you are assuming makes you look bad.

    • Tony Duncan says:
      November 21, 2010 at 8:35 pm

      that is all I get for my efforts?

      I am not here to reward you for anything. I am certain I have put in more effort into this topic than you have. I am not looking for a reward. I did it because I wanted to understand for myself. Now I can see through all the propaganda. That is my reward.

      What you need to get from your efforts is to be a bit wiser. You get that from yourself, not from me. I don’t owe you anything Tony Duncan.

      But if you are go to start spreading things around that are not true I will do this same thing again. And I will enjoy it again.

    • 7:10. “I WAS involved in climate studies about 30 years ago”

      Yes, he was involved in climate modelling. But he got out. He went into the work of observation of climate. You’ll see him talk about it in the video I posted.

  11. Tony Duncan says:

    Amino,

    Do I have your permission to submit our bizarre conversation to a psychology class on self deception?
    I make a statement about an interview that I listened to. You say I am lying. I supply you with the details that confirm my statements, and you come back with ” he has stayed away from the models and done work in the field? You post two videos where he basically says what he said in the interview (without the honest declarations of ignorance). he makes ASSERTIONS. Have you read any of the criticisms of Dyson’s view. Mostly his monolithic view of modelers and simplistic idea of what they actually do and what they base their models on.
    And you say that I am the one who is seeing what I want to see.
    This gets funnier with every post.

    • Tony Duncan says:
      November 21, 2010 at 9:02 pm

      You say I am lying.

      I have changed what I thought. I had said you are lying, But I don’t think that anymore. I think you didn’t take the time to listen to what he really said.

      You still are overlooking where he said he has a better judgment. If you’d like to take this to a class then you can do a study on how people see what they want to see. And you will be the focus of the class.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        I listened THREE times to him saying he has better judgement and typed it out twice. I am quite aware of that.
        That is his ASSERTION. He makes a lot of ASSERTIONS.
        you seem to be ignoring the numerous places where he says he doesn’t know about specifics, NOT about the propaganda but about the actual science. which was the POINT of my initial comment! That he isn’t interested in taking the time to finding out what climate modelers are actually doing. This is not something he is very interested in.
        You said I was lying a number of times before I posted the quotes. You apparently don’t think that is likely now that you can actually listen to the interview, and can compare them to the quotes? Why the sudden belief in my dimwitted integrity?
        If I was capable of lying before why not check and make sure I am not lying now?
        as I posted I have great respect for Dyson. He is one of the great minds of the 20th Century and I will ALWAYS listen to his views. I listened to this 3 times and he has interesting ideas.
        But I do not just accept what he says because he believes it when he repeatedly says he does not know any of the details about what he is talking about. He gives no details on why the models are wrong. Just generalizations about clouds and the biosphere. I want to know what other people who DO know the details have to say. Some of his assertions go totally against what I have read other people saying. I want to compare them and see which view is more credible.

      • Tony Duncan

        Ya Tony, he’s a feeble old man. You’re smarter than him. That’s all. So I’ll be going now.

    • Maybe you could take a class on interpreting what is written or said in its context.

    • What you have done is taken some statements from one interview, and not only have you taken them out of the context with what he has said overall over the years, but you have also taken them out of context with what he said in that interview.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Amino,

        you don’t get it. the CONTEXT was NOT the interview.
        the CONTEXT was you repeatedly saying I was lying, and then badgering me to back up what I said. You never asked me what I thought of the interview. if you had asked me that, and I came up with the quotes I did, you would be right. but you just told me I was lying and demanded that I prove I wasn’t.

        my initial comment was this ( I went back and found it so that we can all be clear about this.)
        “I just listened to an interview with Dyson, and he takes the high road declaring he really isn’t interested in the details. He just knows the models are wrong and those climate scientists don’t understand science like he does. When he was studying climate in the 70′s, they discovered that plants have a relationship with CO2. and climate scientists don’t understand that. Increased CO2 is good for plants, and the temperature rising won’t have any significant negative consequences.
        Boy he sure hit that one out of the park. how could any climate scientist still be an alarmist when this expert explains it this way!”

        You went ballistic and called me a lier when I repeated this.
        Then you accused me of being too scared to give you the link, sure that I couldn’t back up such a sacreligious thing about your skeptic hero.
        I then DID back up what I wrote, giving you detailed verbatim transcription (that I provided at no cost BTW). the context was you saying I lied. I quoted most of the places where he confirmed exactly what I wrote that he said with no massaging. Therefore I did not take anything out of context. You are actually taking this discussion out of context by twisting what went on as me cherry picking instances of him being honest about his lack of knowledge (which I respect) and assertion that that knowledge is not necessary (which I have issues with).

        Context : ‘Tony lied”
        verification: multiple time dated verbatim transcription of instances in interview all of which were completely relevant to the accusation of lying.
        conclusion: Tony didn’t lie.
        further clarification: nothing taken out of context
        That is ALL this was about. making it about more than that is just inaccurate.

        You can’t demand that I do something very specific, and then when I do so, insist that I am distorting his views to fit my preconceptions. Well , you can because obviously you did, but you can’t somehow convince me of that or change the reality that is in black and white on this blog.

        if you want to talk about the content of the interview and what I think of the validity of his points, I am happy to do that, and you will find that, as I have stated a number of times, I take his views very seriously, because he is one of my childhood heros (though not as much as Dirac, who I think was actually one of the few people in the world who was smarter, and Feynman, who is a hell of a lot more entertaining).

    • Tony Duncan says:
      November 21, 2010 at 9:02 pm

      Have you read any of the criticisms of Dyson’s view.

      Maybe you should read some criticisms of the criticisms.

      Maybe you won’t do that because it appears you only look for things that will say what you want to hear, and then you believe that.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        So THEN I write have you read any responses to Dyson’s criticism’s and you come back with “have I read any of Dyson’r responses to those criticism’s”
        Well have you read any of the responses to Dyson’t responses to the criticisms of Dyson’s criticism of ACC.

        And yes I have. And he continues to say that he doesn’t know about any of the specifics.

    • Tony Duncan says:
      November 21, 2010 at 9:02 pm

      Amino,

      Do I have your permission

      Of course I don’t.

      I won’t be there to defend myself. It will be a biased presentation.

      But you don’t think you’re biased. You think you’re smarter, even smarter than Freeman Dyson.

  12. Paul H says:

    Tony

    You are beginning to get as paranoid as Chris.

    Going back to square one, are you seriously challenging Lindzen’s statement that there has been evidence of “overt cheating”. Clearly he would not have said this without being sure of this, so what evidence have you got?

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Paul.

      If Lindzen ha evidence of “overt Cheating” why doesn’t he have the affected articles rescinded?
      I have to produce evidence of lack of cheating of which I have no knowledge?

      This is a joke right? You guys are all in the same room, reading my posts, and wondering what how irrational you can get and see if I STILL respond.

      • truthsword says:

        No, we just don’t understand how you cannot see what is obvious instead of believing in could and maybe dressed up as science.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s