• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Freeman Dyson on global warming

Admiral Buzzkill

Fleet Admiral
Admiral
Great NYT piece yesterday about Dyson's rather humble views regarding science and the whole global warming controversy.

The Civil Heretic.

Sad to hear that at 85 years old, Dyson "has recently stopped climbing trees."

“The costs of what Gore tells us to do would be extremely large,” Dyson said. “By restricting CO2 you make life more expensive and hurt the poor. I’m concerned about the Chinese.”

“They’re the biggest polluters,” Imme replied.

“They’re also changing their standard of living the most, going from poor to middle class. To me that’s very precious.”

The film continued with Gore predicting violent hurricanes, typhoons and tornados. “How in God’s name could that happen here?” Gore said, talking about Hurricane Katrina. “Nature’s been going crazy.”

“That is of course just nonsense,” Dyson said calmly. “With Katrina, all the damage was due to the fact that nobody had taken the trouble to build adequate dikes. To point to Katrina and make any clear connection to global warming is very misleading.”

Now came Arctic scenes, with Gore telling of disappearing ice, drunken trees and drowning polar bears. “Most of the time in history the Arctic has been free of ice,” Dyson said. “A year ago when we went to Greenland where warming is the strongest, the people loved it.”

“They were so proud,” Imme agreed. “They could grow their own cabbage.”

The film ended. “I think Gore does a brilliant job,” Dyson said. “For most people I’d think this would be quite effective. But I knew Roger Revelle. He was definitely a skeptic. He’s not alive to defend himself.”

“All my friends say how smart and farsighted Al Gore is,” she said.

“He certainly is a good preacher,” Dyson replied. “Forty years ago it was fashionable to worry about the coming ice age. Better to attack the real problems like the extinction of species and overfishing. There are so many practical measures we could take.”

“I’m still perfectly happy if you buy me a Prius!” Imme said.

“It’s toys for the rich,” her husband smiled, and then they were arguing about windmills.
 
The part about drowning polar bears is hysterical. That right there shows what a bullshit artist AlGore is.
 
I always liked Dyson. He also is critical of some of the computer modeling that is so much held in high regard even though when you attempt to model a chaotic system it is hard to get the predictions right.
 
That's rather interesting to hear, coming from Dyson.

Indeed. That's why I was interested.

I can't say that I'm particularly skeptical of the observations or basic science underlying scientific concern about climate change. I'm not terribly convinced by the remarkable confidence with which researchers like Hansen - who is as arrogant as Dyson is modest - make predictions about the progress of future events, and I'm dubious about some of the prescriptions advanced.

Part of Dyson's critique of the modeling is that such models are abstractions from reality and that most of the significant ones being used to advance the more alarming hypotheses are entirely atmospheric models - they ignore biological systems and their impact on climate and atmospheric composition.
 
That's rather interesting to hear, coming from Dyson.

Indeed. That's why I was interested.

I can't say that I'm particularly skeptical of the observations or basic science underlying scientific concern about climate change. I'm not terribly convinced by the remarkable confidence with which researchers like Hansen - who is as arrogant as Dyson is modest - make predictions about the progress of future events, and I'm dubious about some of the prescriptions advanced.

Part of Dyson's critique of the modeling is that such models are abstractions from reality and that most of the significant ones being used to advance the more alarming hypotheses are entirely atmospheric models - they ignore biological systems and their impact on climate and atmospheric composition.

He may have more of a point if his statement was actually true. In fact, coupled ocean-atmosphere-biosphere models have been widespread for at least five years. The Hadley Center started incorporating an early biosphere model to their GCM in 1998. I also don't think it's fair to call climate model predictions "remarkably confident" considering they always provide published uncertainties and ranges, often quite broad ones. Remarkably conservative or understated would be closer to the truth, especially in the case of future sea level rise.

That, and several other basic factual inaccuracies in his statements (ignoring that elevated CO2 will do nothing for plants when phosphorus and nitrogen are limiting nutrients, as is always the case in natural settings), suggests to me that he is maybe disagreeing more for the sake of being iconoclastic than anything else. He also seems pretty certain that the tropics won't warm much, when in fact that is fairly uncertain and more lines of evidence are pointing to tropical "super-greenhouses" in the Cretaceous or Eocene, for example. I'm also not sure how you can consider ocean acidification a "probably exaggerated" problem if you know anything about the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, end-Permian mass extinction, or end-Triassic mass extinction.

He also cites the Y2K bug as an example of scaremongering - "terrified certainty that never occurred." In fact, it never occurred because people identified the problem and took precautionary steps to fix it. It, like climate change, is thus an excellent example of an instance in which it is far cheaper to spend money to prevent a problem than to spend lots of money later to deal with the consequences.
 
Well, we're sure going to find out - since all the things that people like Hansen say we have to do in the next ten years in order to prevent their predictions from coming true are not going to happen.
 
Anthropogenic climate change is pretty much a fact - before climate change has occurred without the input of human beings. There will be differences from before as there's a new factor involved. I could never deny that.

However, I am sick of the pseudo-religious aspects of some within the "green" lobby who are treating this entire thing as the scientific equivalent of the Book of Revelation in order to basically squeeze money out of us. Things like carbon credits are complete bunkum, as basically it's money that just goes into the pocket of some schmuck that says he'll "offset" your emissions in some vague way. There's also crap like Sheryl Crow lecturing us on only using one sheet of toilet paper to "save the world". The subject has accrued so much BS it's hard to get any objective, unbiased thinking on it any more.
 
Dyson had proposed that whatever inflammations the climate was experiencing might be a good thing because carbon dioxide helps plants of all kinds grow. Then he added the caveat that if CO2 levels soared too high, they could be soothed by the mass cultivation of specially bred “carbon-eating trees,” whereupon the University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner looked through the thick grove of honorary degrees Dyson has been awarded — there are 21 from universities like Georgetown, Princeton and Oxford — and suggested that “perhaps trees can also be designed so that they can give directions to lost hikers.”

Who cares about what some Lawyer thinks with regard to a scientific issue?

More of Mr. Dyson's thoughts on this issue:

http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf

Like Dyson, I too have a lot of doubts about Global Warming in general. It's hard to put faith into something when some Politician starts saying the world is going to end if we don't spend money.
 
I too remember the scare-mongering about the return of the ice age -- it makes it hard to take climate models seriously. Have they done any modelling to see if they can accurately predict what has already happened based on historic data? I assume they must perform such calibration.

There's also crap like Sheryl Crow lecturing us on only using one sheet of toilet paper to "save the world".

Mommy, why does that lady smell funny?
 
Anthropogenic climate change is pretty much a fact - before climate change has occurred without the input of human beings. There will be differences from before as there's a new factor involved. I could never deny that.

However, I am sick of the pseudo-religious aspects of some within the "green" lobby who are treating this entire thing as the scientific equivalent of the Book of Revelation in order to basically squeeze money out of us. Things like carbon credits are complete bunkum, as basically it's money that just goes into the pocket of some schmuck that says he'll "offset" your emissions in some vague way. There's also crap like Sheryl Crow lecturing us on only using one sheet of toilet paper to "save the world". The subject has accrued so much BS it's hard to get any objective, unbiased thinking on it any more.
That's because your research consists of listening to Sheryl Crow. :p

Here's a better idea, hit the library and your local college/university and speak to people in the fields of climate and climate studies. Read peer-reviewed articles in widely read scientific journals rather than internet websites and forums.

And then make your decisions on the issue. I'm not really pointing that at you, moreso most of the people I know IRL.

"But Tom Clancy says climate change due to humans is bunk!"
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top