4 thoughts on “Freeman Dyson”

  1. I find it humorous that the climate catastrophists claim their climate models prove the case for doom. Yet climate scientists still can’t adequately model the climate changes of the Eocene Epoch.

  2. Freeman Dyson is the only one I’ve ever read who has pointed out we ought to be considering the dynamics of soil absorption and emission of CO2. I’ve seen studies that do it for seawater at the surface layer. Also the variations due to the greening of the planet.

    “Sea level rise is accelerating due to climate change!”

    “We do not believe you Mr. Smart!”

    “Well would you believe in my latest IPCC Climate Model Ensemble?”

    “No Mr. Maxwell Smart, we are agents of CHAOS!”

  3. Yes! And the environmental religion is good: the idea that we should preserve nature as much as we can, preserve rare species and preserve forests. To me, all that is very good.

    Preservation tempered by rational thought is good but the religiosity is bad.

    As small tribes hunting in the forest, competing with each other. That’s how humans evolved. And under those conditions the important thing was loyalty to the tribe. It was absolutely the most important thing to have people totally loyal to the tribe. Holding the tribe together. And whether their beliefs where right or wrong was not so important. As long as they believed the same things they would survive. And I think that is very much driving us still. To be with the herd, to be thinking the same thoughts as other people is build into our nature.

    Among the sciency crowd there is a belief that a certain set modern homo sapien sapiens have attained enlightenment and shed parts of our more primitive humanity. This is far from the truth and the misunderstanding of humanity, of what makes us human, combined with the rejection of outlets to express our more magical side is causing a regression into the primitive.

    1. –wodun
      March 6, 2019 At 2:36 PM
      Yes! And the environmental religion is good: the idea that we should preserve nature as much as we can, preserve rare species and preserve forests. To me, all that is very good.

      Preservation tempered by rational thought is good but the religiosity is bad.–

      It can be bad.
      It seems religion is needed.
      I wish religions were more involved in space exploration.
      Or I think religions should be more interested in the heavens.
      It seems to me that religiosity is a different path.
      I think religions are like Music.
      And it seems to me that music is essential, as is religions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *