>>First, I pointed out that Dyson has no scientific training in the highly technical subject matter from which he dramatically differs from consensus scientific view.
>. That's absurd. His "training" is irrelevant. The matter at hand is the area of his expertise.
Yeah you're playing word games. Expertise and training and mastery of a domain and ability to do productive research in a field and a million other noun phrases are all the same thing- do you comprehend the technical matter and the work of the researchers in the field and can you make contributions to advance that understanding ?
Dyson has none of this in this field, by his own direct admission, which you have attempted to dance around with your word play. Have some more, liar-
From Yale's website:
Dyson about an interviewer:
"he wanted to write a piece about global warming and I was just the instrument for that, and I am not so much interested in global warming.
He portrayed me as sort of obsessed with the subject, which I am definitely not. To me it is a very small part of my life.
I don't claim to be an expert. I never did.
I simply find that a lot of these claims that experts are making are absurd. Not that I know better, but I know a few things.
My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it's rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have.
I think that's what upsets me."
That "not knowing much" fact he cites, that state of "not being an expert" that he mentions, that "not knowing better" has consequences. One of those consequences is he floats notions which the people who do know the field reject out of hand as impossible. That is not some badge of honor, that is just being wrong.
Only Sara Palin and her ilk take that as a sure sign you're right.
Only narcissists believe that, when faced with that situation, the thing to do is to throw away the accumulated knowledge and hard won agreement of technical experts who have spent their professional lives comparing their predictions to reality and submitted themselves to the rigours of peer review. People whose models' predicted results have been repeatedly borne out and whose work in effect constitutes humanity's deep knowledge of a field and go by gut.
Sara Palin and, oh yeah, Freeman Dyson.
Dyson can't "take issue with the way climate science is done" or "take issue with their techniques" or "find flaws in their methodology" or any other of a million ways to express the same idea because he doesn't understand them. That's what happens when you don't DO the work- you don't understand the work.
So, heh, I guess you actually didn't address any absurdity. But feel free to raise your own hand in victory *in exactly the same way Dyson declares his meanderings to be relevant*.
>>Oh, how foolish you are. That is sooo far from what he actually said.
I think the above disposes of that idea....let the reader be the judge.
The rest of your post consists of broad, baseless and meaningless screeching about *how environmentalists have destroyed science* etc etc which are just typical of your kind. You have the belief that by speaking words, you have the power to make the ideas in those words reality.
You also have the idea, with Dyson, that if facts disagree with you, it's all political and that you should be given the power to decide what facts are facts.
That and all that flows from it, in this case denial of an impending disaster which will put the blood of millions on yours and Dyson's hands , is the reason why conservatism has moved from being just weird and sad to dangerous and an existential threat to civilization.
We had this happen once last century. For a long time, America slept . Then it awoke to the danger- and over the objects of many conservatives- did what it needed to do.
The only difference this time is it's not just America who's going to awake to the danger and do what needs to be done. It's the entire world.