Sorry, but I thought when you called me a chimp that meant it was ok for me to start insulting you.

Our opinions regarding the chimp-like attributes of each other are also irrelevant...

I was just providing an example of primates who know as much about climatology as Mr. Dyson.

Well YOU had just insulted a world renowned physicist ..................

No, I provided some perspective on his understanding of climatology.

Sadly, everyone missing the point. this isn't about science at all. it is about generating false fear for monetary exploitation and political power grab. Same as pump and dump facebook ipo. Exactly the same. Global warming, really the most vile, disgusting example of pure evil ever invented. Trillions of dollars, wasted, time lost, lives manipulated, freedom suppressed...etc. all over decades. The greatest crime against humanity ever.

I still remember back in the 70's going to the local fair and the guy explaining to my dad that everyone will have solar panels. What a phucking joke. Or when I was in college and we read about "limits to growth" and how we are supposed to be out of oil by now. Another phucking joke.

You have to realize, anyone with phd from the university...etc. this is a license for exploitation, whatever the field. Give me my government grant money now so I can invent a bunch of crap and create some more paranoia to feed the beast I worship and tonque lick in the ass.

And to quote him further from Andy's article ...............

"Syukuro Manabe, right here in Princeton, was the first person who did climate models with enhanced carbon dioxide and they were excellent models. And he used to say very firmly that these models are very good tools for understanding climate, but they are not good tools for predicting climate. I think that’s absolutely right. They are models, but they don’t pretend to be the real world. They are purely fluid dynamics. You can learn a lot from them, but you cannot learn what’s going to happen 10 years from now.

What’s wrong with the models. I mean, I haven’t examined them in detail, (but) I know roughly what’s in them. And the basic problem is that in the case of climate, very small structures, like clouds, dominate. And you cannot model them in any realistic way. They are far too small and too diverse.

So they say, ‘We represent cloudiness by a parameter,’ but I call it a fudge factor. So then you have a formula, which tells you if you have so much cloudiness and so much humidity, and so much temperature, and so much pressure, what will be the result... But if you are using it for a different climate, when you have twice as much carbon dioxide, there is no guarantee that that’s right. There is no way to test it.

We know that plants do react very strongly to enhanced carbon dioxide. At Oak Ridge, they did lots of experiments with enhanced carbon dioxide and it has a drastic effect on plants because it is the main food source for the plants... So if you change the carbon dioxide drastically by a factor of two, the whole behavior of the plant is different. Anyway, that’s so typical of the things they ignore. They are totally missing the biological side, which is probably more than half of the real system."

MadBlaster, thanks for your ode to ignorance.

I'm still still just as interested in what the chimps have to say on the subject

I think I'm feeding a troll .........................