You may have read something about the NYT article a while back that discussed the brilliant scientist Freeman Dyson and his opposition to global warming.
Excerpt from the NYT article:
Dyson may be an Obama-loving, Bush-loathing liberal who has spent his life opposing American wars and fighting for the protection of natural resources, but he brooks no ideology and has a withering aversion to scientific consensus.
…IT WAS FOUR YEARS AGO that Dyson began publicly stating his doubts about climate change. Speaking at the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future at Boston University, Dyson announced that “all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated.” Since then he has only heated up his misgivings, declaring in a 2007 interview with Salon.com that “the fact that the climate is getting warmer doesn’t scare me at all” and writing in an essay for The New York Review of Books, the left-leaning publication that is to gravitas what the Beagle was to Darwin, that climate change has become an “obsession” — the primary article of faith for “a worldwide secular religion” known as environmentalism.
Among those he considers true believers, Dyson has been particularly dismissive of Al Gore, whom Dyson calls climate change’s “chief propagandist,” and James Hansen, the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and an adviser to Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Dyson accuses them of relying too heavily on computer-generated climate models that foresee a Grand Guignol of imminent world devastation as icecaps melt, oceans rise and storms and plagues sweep the earth, and he blames the pair’s “lousy science” for “distracting public attention” from “more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet.”
Well, the NYT got a fascinating letter to the editor in response to their profile of Dyson. The letter came from a graduate student at Harvard named Monika Kopacz.
The letter is excerpted in First Things (H/T The Weekly Standard):
It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.
Remember, in 1975, the leftist magazine Newsweek propped up the global cooling as the crisis-du-jour.
Excerpt from an article from the Business and Media Institute:
It took 31 years, but Newsweek magazine admitted it was incorrect about climate change. In a nearly 1,000-word correction, Senior Editor Jerry Adler finally agreed that a 1975 piece on global cooling “was so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future.”
Even then, Adler wasn’t quite willing to blame Newsweek for the incredible failure. “In fact, the story wasn’t ‘wrong’ in the journalistic sense of ‘inaccurate,’” he claimed. “Some scientists indeed thought the Earth might be cooling in the 1970s, and some laymen – even one as sophisticated and well-educated as Isaac Asimov – saw potentially dire implications for climate and food production,” Adler added.
Journalists, lacking marketable skills, support socialism. They believe that their word-smithing skills are more worthy than the practical skills of engineers and entrepreneurs. Socialism is their way of regaining the accolades they lost once they left the safe confines of the public school classroom.
Any myth that will allow the government to seize control of the free-market must be supported, regardless of the evidence. And the same thing applies to Darwinism. Only in this case, the target is not the free market, but the church. And the goal is not redistribution of wealth, but autonomy from moral judgments and moral constraints.
For more on scientific opposition politics masquerading as science, see here.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
Mr. Dyson is a physicist, not a climatologist; not sure if you were aware of that fact. He doesn’t know what he is talking about.
“There is the suspicion that, at age 85, a great scientist of the 20th century is no longer just far out, he is far gone — out of his beautiful old mind.” (NYT)
As for the reader comment posted by the graduate student, I have found nothing whatsoever from the ‘net more recently than 1988 to substantiate her claim that scientists had ever “exaggerated” their case on global climate change. Perhaps if you could cite a more credible source other than from a nobody on the Internet posting a reader comment, you might have a case.
What the reader says, at any rate, is irrelevant from the standpoint of science. The latest scientific evidence (based on real world data–not just on computer climate models) indicate that changes are occurring much faster than most computer climate models have thus far predicted. In fact, the latest IPCC assessment (2007), which failed to include positive feedbacks whatsoever in their predictions, had underestimated so badly that it is now considered obsolete by most climate experts.
Not sure what Newsweek or their error on global cooling from 30 or 40 years ago has to do with global warming. “Newsweek” is not a scientific publication of any kind.
Global warming has been the majority scientific opinion for nearly a century. This view has never changed, even as the “global cooling” theory became popularized in the popular media in the 1970s. Even then, “global cooling” was a theory held by only small percentage of climate scientists, most of whom have since reversed their positions to agree with the consensus or have died.
As for your political viewpoints, they seem irrelevant at this as you do not seem to understand the science.
LikeLike