Because carbon emissions do not corolate with global tempreture...

No, the point is that there Dyson is demanding a definitive model when he knows full well that it is not possible to make such a model.

You'll listen to him because you agree with him? And you won't listen to the other scientists and mathematicians who say he is wrong? So much for objectivity. And what advice has he ever given on 'getting the computer model right' anyway? You are grasping at straws.

He knows next to nothing about climatology. We might as well be listening to what chimps have to say on the subject.

To quote him from the Article Andy put up .............

"e360: So it’s a sense you get from the way the argument is conducted that it’s not being done in an honest way.

Dyson: I think the difference between me and most of the experts is that I think I have a much wider view of the whole subject. I was involved in climate studies seriously about 30 years ago. That’s how I got interested. There was an outfit called the Institute for Energy Analysis at Oak Ridge. I visited Oak Ridge many times, and worked with those people, and I thought they were excellent. And the beauty of it was that it was multi-disciplinary. There were experts not just on hydrodynamics of the atmosphere, which of course is important, but also experts on vegetation, on soil, on trees, and so it was sort of half biological and half physics. And I felt that was a very good balance.

And there you got a very strong feeling for how uncertain the whole business is, that the five reservoirs of carbon all are in close contact — the atmosphere, the upper level of the ocean, the land vegetation, the topsoil, and the fossil fuels. They are all about equal in size. They all interact with each other strongly. So you can’t understand any of them unless you understand all of them. Essentially that was the conclusion. It’s a problem of very complicated ecology, and to isolate the atmosphere and the ocean just as a hydrodynamics problem makes no sense.

Thirty years ago, there was a sort of a political split between the Oak Ridge community, which included biology, and people who were doing these fluid dynamics models, which don’t include biology. They got the lion’s share of money and attention. And since then, this group of pure modeling experts has become dominant.

I got out of the field then. I didn’t like the way it was going. It left me with a bad taste."

Sorry mate but the only chimp in the room, pardon the change on a common parlance, is yourself ......................

You would learn as much by talking to a chimp.

No offense, but chimps probably understand more about science than the likes of you.

Dyson is irrelevant. He says he isn't an expert. He isn't. The overwhelming consensus amongst the relevant section of the scientific community is that anthropomorphic climate change is real, and will have widespread harmful effects. This is the simple fact here. The denialists are largely driven by greed, ignorance or just plain loopiness, and their opinions on the matter are thus also irrelevant. Scientific questions cannot be answered by propaganda, end of story.

Well I'd probably have a better all round conversation with said chimp, and not have to listen to someone trying to insult me or my intelligence or another human beings for that matter. You're a very small souled individual mate ................