 |
Theoretical physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson on global warming
Wall Street Journal
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Theoretical physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson on global warming in the New York Review of Books:
Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalists — most of whom are not scientists — holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. . . .
Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the belief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.
Prison
Planet.tv Members Can Watch
Fall Of The Republic
Right Now Online -
Don't Miss Out! Get
Your Subscription Today!
CANCER CONSPIRACY? Are
"they" suppressing the cure? Will YOU
be the next victim? Learn
the Secret Truth! - READ FULL STORY
-
- Social bookmarks
- Email this article
-
- Print this page
15 Responses to “Theoretical physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson on global warming”
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |||||||
| By N2H | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
July 11th, 2008 at 1:09 am
Global Warming is a tool that continues to be used by the global elite to progresiveley erode human rights and freedoms across the world. Such elistist have always carried the universal ambition to control and dominate human populations, whereby the false threat of global warming is nothing more than an excellent scare tactic in consolidating further control over the people. How does a global carbon tax prevent global warming.
July 11th, 2008 at 2:50 am
Prison ppalnet does a great job in its political exposes but it is soooo wrong about global warming.
Just take look at the polar ice caps. You don’t have to be an environmentalist to know something is wrong.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:58 am
Mr. Belzak,
The argument isn’t against “if” there is global climate change. The argument is against “why” there is global climate change.
Satanic puppet Al Gore per his handlers want people to think they are the problem and reason why there is global climate change. This is the same crew that told people in the 70s there was an ice age upon us! Please do some research into what causes global climate change. There is very compelling evidence that the sun is what drives this process. One good example is temperature data from other planets are increasing as well.
I will also point you to historical data concerning the middle ages – which is when the country of Greenland was so named. Also, the vineyards which flourished in England during that time of very warm weather.
There’s also the documentation from the Club of Rome and other think tanks which wrote they would use the outside threat of mother nature to corral people into accepting their policies of mass population reduction.
Please do more research into these things. Again, we don’t argue global climate change is occurring – we are arguing against why it is happening. Many sources point to the sun’s activities and not man’s. Best to you.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:46 am
Yeah! Their old stories about terrorists everywhere is getting old, so they needed to find something else. Now every one is an environmental terrorist… because we exhale CO2. Bad human race, bad!
July 11th, 2008 at 8:31 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....-petit.png
This graph of data collected from the Vostok ice cores demonstrates several important things:
– That global CO2 levels have been as high and higher in the past than they are today without causing the extinction of polar bears.
– That global CO2 levels FOLLOW global temperatures upward and downward; therefore global CO2 levels DO NOT CAUSE global temperature change.
– That the analysis of climate scientists in the 1970s that the world is approaching a return to Ice Age conditions was correct and remains correct.
Al Gore is a neocon opportunist gangster and a hypocrit who lives in a 10,000 square foot home, travels by limo and Lear jet, and has sired four children. Gore hopes to make a fortune on his investments in ‘carbon trading’, and the leaders of the Global Warming movement want to bring back dangerous nuclear energy production in a big, big way.
– Gregory Fegel
July 11th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
There have been numerous ice ages in Earth’s lifetime. What happens in between ice ages? THE PLANET WARMS UP.
How come when the Romans were able to grow grapes in Britain, the planet didn’t become uninhabitable?
Why is Greenland called Greenland when people think it should be covered in ice? Could it be because wheat could be grown there when it was named?
This information used to be in History books. Why isn’t it now?
July 12th, 2008 at 2:23 am
I don’t doubt tah these changes can be used by global eletes for tehir own ends.
However, there is clear evidence in the paleoclimatological record of a link between higher temperatures and higher levels of CO2. Indeed, were there not any CO2 on Earth it would be too cold for life. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas.
The historical data does not show a global warming period in medieval times, but a regional one, since climate can be affected by such things as heat transfer caused by ocean currents.
Happy to debate with you guys. Prison Planet does a good job, although I disagree on this particular issue.
Steve
July 12th, 2008 at 9:17 am
steve belzak says : However, there is clear evidence in the paleoclimatological record of a link between higher temperatures and higher levels of CO2. Indeed, were there not any CO2 on Earth it would be too cold for life. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas.
Yes! there is a link between temperature increase and c02 levels.. the c02 FOLLOWS the temperature change… the c02 increases or decreases based on temp fluctuations..and always AFTER THE FACT [period]
steve belzk says: “Indeed, were there not any CO2 on Earth it would be too cold for life. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas.”
Powerful greenhouse gas? Carbon dioxide forms approximately 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere. POINT FOUR PERCENT. The major greenhouse gas is water vapor. WAR ON WATER VAPOR!
MIchael Crichton is an excellent researcher… has developed an analogy regarding the levels of c02 in the atmosphere…this analogy allows for a sane and reasonable perspective.
“In his must-read eco-thriller, State of Fear, Michael Crichton creates a brilliant visual to assist us in wrapping our minds around the components of Earth’s atmosphere. On page 387, he likens the atmosphere to a football field. The goal line to the 78 yard-line contains nothing but nitrogen. Oxygen fills the next 21 yards to the 99 yard-line. The final yard, except for four inches, is argon, a wonderfully mysterious inert gas useful for putting out electronic fires. Three of the remaining four inches is crammed with a variety of minor, but essential, gases like neon, helium, hydrogen and methane. And the last inch? Carbon dioxide. One inch out of a hundred-yard field! At this point I like to add, if you were in the stands looking down on the action, you would need binoculars to see the width of that line. And the most important point-how much of that last inch is contributed by man-made activities? Envision a line about as thin as a dime standing on edge.
So… lets bankrupt the economy, throw our sovereignty out the window, allow sweeping new powers and invasive “carbon-trading schemes” to “combat” global warming!
Heck, the climate change “GODS” say they just might, maybe, perhaps, possibly,might be able to trim a wee percentage of that “dime on edge” amount of c02 we humans actually contribute.MAYBE.
Still, these white-robed deacons of the Church Of Global Warming just want to save your soul, and you’d better listen to them….
you don’t want to burn in Earth, do you?
I appreciate you’re points steve, but really once a person understands that c02 levels FOLLOW temperature…there is no more debate.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:58 am
neon,
Just because water vapour is a greenhouse gas does not mean that there are no others. There are. Not just CO2 but methane too.
July 12th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Okay, all well and good and even enlightening. But what then are we looking at. The polar ice caps are breaking up, the Russians are punching an alternative canal thru on two fronts. Weather patterns have gone crazy. The world weather vacillate between El Nino and La Nina. So according to physicists and climatologists whom I assume are in better position than I to know, its not carbon. Then whats goin on?? Who can deny that we are not in the midst of an ecological crisis, that species and rainforest are vanishing at an astounding rate and that this world is not inhabited by too many humans, of which I myself have been accused of being but am not altogether sure……
July 13th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide weather we face an ice age or warming.
Thanks to the release of Al Gore’s latest effort on global warming – this time in book and movie form – climate change is the hot topic in press rooms around the globe. It isn’t the first time.
The media have warned about impending climate doom four different times in the last 100 years. Only they can’t decide if mankind will die from warming or cooling.
As the noise from the controversy has increased, it has drowned out any debate. Journalists have taken advocacy positions, often ignoring climate change skeptics entirely. One CBS reporter even compared skeptics of manmade global warming to Holocaust deniers.
The Society of Environmental Journalists Spring 2006 SEJournal included a now-common media position, arguing against balance. But that sense of certainty ignores the industry’s history of hyping climate change – from cooling to warming, back to cooling and warming once again.
The Media Research Center’s Business & Media Institute (formerly the Free Market Project) conducted an extensive analysis of print media’s climate change coverage back to the late 1800s.
It found that many publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895.
http://www.businessandmedia.or.....andice.asp
July 14th, 2008 at 7:26 am
There is an old childrens tale that my parents use to read to me before I fell asllep. It’s called Chicken Little – “the sky is falling, the sky is falling!”
Remember it?
July 14th, 2008 at 8:41 am
if global warming was real wouldn’t Al walk the walk?
July 14th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
OK no joke,,, i live in australia and this is all you here, nearly every day on the t.v…. global warming,,, save the planet.
it is crazy…. how can 20 million australians stop global warming stop global warming, when china and america use so much more then us aussies..
July 24th, 2008 at 7:10 am
@Mor MacFey
“It found that many publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – just 30 years ago.”
That’s what you get when you listen to the MEDIA. Of course if they had done the same study but of peer reviewed scientific papers, they would have found that for every paper suggesting cooling, there was 3 suggesting warming. Over time the evidence mounted and now NO ONE denies that the Earth is warming.
“The Society of Environmental Journalists Spring 2006 SEJournal included a now-common media position, arguing against balance.”
Actually, no they didn’t. They argued that BALANCE does not mean telling a LIE beside the TRUTH. In other words, journalistic balance does not mean seeking out ANY contrary opinion, regardless of whether it has any merit at all. They argued that if “balance” requires printing KNOWN falsehoods, then all that is accomplished is the misleading of the public. And they are right.
The kind of “balance” that the liars and deniers rely on is like printing the views of the Flat Earth Society as being equally credible as the thousands of scientists who can PROVE the Earth is actually rather round. That kind of “balance” is how the elites keep you under control. Don’t fall for it.
In fac this very site is full of people saying the exact same thing, when the media do it when discussing 9/11. But hey, who needs to be consistent in their views regarding media honesty? Let’s all just jump back and forth as the mood suits us!