“I just think they don’t understand the climate…..” — Freeman Dyson on today’s climatologists.
So says a nuclear rocket scientist.
Of course, regular readers here will know that many of my posts on climatology is simply that statement, themed.
The fact is most of the climatologists today are sophists with linear and barely two dimensional thinkers. They acquiesce their mandate to think to computer models based upon their own sophistry, creating a circular confirmation. These calamitous climatologist clowns don’t even understand the essence of computers, much less climate. A computer is incapable of modeling our climate outside the understanding of man. And, I seriously doubt that if human knowledge ever got to the point of understanding our climate that a computer could model it. It is entirely contradictory. Our climate is chaotic. This is the antithesis of a computer.
[I]n the late 1970s, he got involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tenn.
That research, which involved scientists from many disciplines, was based on experimentation. The scientists studied such questions as how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with plant life and the role of clouds in warming.
But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.
Computers do not replace thought.
As a computer technician, network admin, database admin ect…. , there’s nothing more irritating to me when someone tells me “the computer said……”. It drives me up the wall. The computer, any computer, doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already tell it to say. It is simply that way. Any jackass quoting a computer model doesn’t know wtf they’re talking about. And, this is, in essence, exactly what the climatologists of the world are doing.
Mr. Dyson has related that he greatly dislikes any comparison of him to Einstein, so I shan’t do such.
But, when Mr. Dyson essentially echoes what I’ve stated many, many times in the past….. well, I won’t get in a tizzy about any comparisons of me to him. In fact, I’ll just make one myself. 
Of course, I’m not the only one who has related such thoughts. We’re in good company.
suyts space 
I book marked the article. I am sure the standard response will be used when I throw it at an alarmist. But at least I will have the satisfaction of watching them squirm.
Looks like Gavin was the first.
MY MY MY
Bwwhahahahaha!!!! That’s a thing of beauty!!!!
The thief talking of “tarnishing” a legacy.
Pretty much! 😆 it’s like One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest in real life.
I wonder if people like Mr. Gleick, Mr Mann et al are missing whatever is in the brain…that tells you…ummmmm I should not speak out on this?
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
We have a nasty little warmist on the Delingpole blogs and this was its response when I posted the WUWT link;
No, all I read were assertions that models are wrong. How much experience does Dyson have with them?
How robust are they to varying his ‘fudge factors’ (which are often more tightly constrained than people like him know or care to admit).
I do love his CO2 fertilisation argument: this is so astonishingly simplistic I’m sure it has any scientist with actual expertise in studying trophic interactions choking.
You should point out what the article says……
So, he has years of experience. As far as constraints go, they don’t know what they don’t know. Computers don’t replace thought.
Oh we did, don’t worry. You know what these people are like. If they could make up a (UK) soccer team the opposition would all be laying on the turf, nursing broken ankles, and the ball would still be sitting, undisturbed, on the centre spot.
‘Play the man, not the ball’ is their only creed.
“Computers don’t replace thought.” – Actually what I think you mean to say is they do not replace intelligence yet. As twitter and facebook prove, for many people, they have replaced thought.
I stand corrected.
Well my computer model still works. A few days ago I updated it from the original late 2009 version of the graph to see how it was going. I did it around the time of Copenhagen for my own interest, but didn’t upload the pic until I got into a blogfight with some guy: when I cast aspersions on climate models he sneering said to me ‘well where’s your model then’. So I worked out how to use Flickr and uploaded the model output. ‘Here it is’ says I. Never have I seen a troll skedaddle away so fast…
Answer: very good indeed, if I say so myself. And Paul Homewood has a post today saying that the CET is tracking down by a lot in the first 3 months of this year. My model uses annual CET averages, so I can’t include these numbers. But the direction is just about perfect.
Should I ring up NOAA and ask them to buy me a supercomputer?
You should! I’d have some questions about your model and CET, but, I’m working on a post which may lead you to some other questions and perhaps even statements to and about NOAA. ….. calcareous. 🙂
If you are on one end of an argument…
…and Freeman Dyson is on the other…
…prepare to lose…
“The computer, any computer, doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already tell it to say. It is simply that way. ”
Well, what I do is I make the computer run an evolution to breed me an optimal trading strategy (and that’s why I’m in Gold ATM) … so I disagree with your statement… of course, what the climate scientists did is way below what I’m doing… it’s not that what I’m doing is in any way unique… they’re just C-rated government scientists….
Dirk, your program results in exactly what you told it to do. You didn’t create any artificial intelligence.
I disagree. I provided a set of operators. I never assumed that it would come up with a simple seasonal strategy. The artificial intelligence lies in selecting the optimal solution amongst about 10 to the 100th power combinations. Well it’s probably not optimal but it’s the best known to man yet…
Given enough time I could have found it myself. Nothing remarkable. But I spend most of my time working so I delegated it to the computer to find it by himself.
You’re going to make me insane. Are you trying to make me cry and scream? Mr. computer didn’t do anything you didn’t tell him to do. He found your solution based upon the parameters you input. I drank a whole beer just reading this. 😀
😆
Turing???…………. LOL
Jennifer Marohasy did this with rainfall here in Oz and her laptop neural network model does better than BoM’s supercomputer (which I might add grafts CSIRO’s stuff onto the basic model they bought off of UK Met Office…yes that model).
The difference though Dirk is your model is not working with essentially human-free raw data whereas hers is.
As I said before I suspect some serious manipulation is going on in gold and now silver, because the Fed and their central banking friends want to get the sheep to move from one side of the field to the other without scaring them. Rising gold price scares sheep, ask any sheepdog. Inflation and risk perceptions feed into rising gold, which the Fed does not want until they bootstrap the S&P. Which won’t work, but the issue here is not what the Fed wants or doesn’t want, its us getting caught in the gears.
Which is why I don’t publish in climate science. Rather better to stay below the radar and eat out the foundations quietly like a good little worm.
The may not understand climate, but they understand that the fear of catastrophic climate can be very lucrative at times.