This is a well written essay by the New York times on Freeman Dyson. Dyson is one of the world’s most eminent physicists. As many WUWT readers know he is a skeptic of AGW aka “global warming”, even going so far as to signing the Oregon Petition, seen below.
This part really spoke to me:
What may trouble Dyson most about climate change are the experts. Experts are, he thinks, too often crippled by the conventional wisdom they create, leading to the belief that “they know it all.” The men he most admires tend to be what he calls “amateurs,” inventive spirits of uncredentialed brilliance like Bernhard Schmidt, an eccentric one-armed alcoholic telescope-lens designer; Milton Humason, a janitor at Mount Wilson Observatory in California whose native scientific aptitude was such that he was promoted to staff astronomer; and especially Darwin, who, Dyson says, “was really an amateur and beat the professionals at their own game.”
You can read an essay about his views on climate change, posted here on WUWT on 11/05/2007.
Excerpt: from the NYT article:
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.”
“The climate-studies people who work with models always tend to overestimate their models,” Dyson was saying. “They come to believe models are real and forget they are only models.”
If only we could get James Hansen to spend an afternoon with Freeman Dyson. (h/t to Alexandre Aguiar )
New York Times Magazine Preview
By NICHOLAS DAWIDOFF
FOR MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY the eminent physicist Freeman Dyson has quietly resided in Princeton, N.J., on the wooded former farmland that is home to his employer, the Institute for Advanced Study, this country’s most rarefied community of scholars. Lately, however, since coming “out of the closet as far as global warming is concerned,” as Dyson sometimes puts it, there has been noise all around him. Chat rooms, Web threads, editors’ letter boxes and Dyson’s own e-mail queue resonate with a thermal current of invective in which Dyson has discovered himself variously described as “a pompous twit,” “a blowhard,” “a cesspool of misinformation,” “an old coot riding into the sunset” and, perhaps inevitably, “a mad scientist.” 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.” Dyson’s son, George, a technology historian, says his father’s views have cooled friendships, while many others have concluded that time has cost Dyson something else. 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 mind.
But in the considered opinion of the neurologist Oliver Sacks, Dyson’s friend and fellow English expatriate, this is far from the case. “His mind is still so open and flexible,” Sacks says. Which makes Dyson something far more formidable than just the latest peevish right-wing climate-change denier. Dyson is a scientist whose intelligence is revered by other scientists — William Press, former deputy director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and now a professor of computer science at the University of Texas, calls him “infinitely smart.” Dyson — a mathematics prodigy who came to this country at 23 and right away contributed seminal work to physics by unifying quantum and electrodynamic theory — not only did path-breaking science of his own; he also witnessed the development of modern physics, thinking alongside most of the luminous figures of the age, including Einstein, Richard Feynman, Niels Bohr, Enrico Fermi, Hans Bethe, Edward Teller, J. Robert Oppenheimer and Edward Witten, the “high priest of string theory” whose office at the institute is just across the hall from Dyson’s. Yet instead of hewing to that fundamental field, Dyson chose to pursue broader and more unusual pursuits than most physicists — and has lived a more original life.
Stephen Hawking is a critical thinker, no? His credentials are certainly on par with Mr Dyson. Stephen Hawking believes that man is accelerating Global Warming. Just google his name and GW.
My point is that scientists and ametuers of all ranges of credential can be found on both sides of the issue. This is what we need to focus on, so that we can use that fact to stop politicians from MAKING POLICY on science that is clearly NOT SETTLED.
Saying “AGW exists” or “AGW does not exist” is the same is saying God does or does not exist, IMO. From my agnostic perspective, either one is plausible, but it’s UNKNOWABLE. Atheism takes just as much “faith” as Christianity, but both sides argue that the case is settled.
It’s not settled, and policy should not be based on things that are not settled.
It is quite surprising that the NYT is going to publish this. I guess it will be in the Magazine, and not the science section (probably because of the length), but they are the standard-bearer of the AGW message, and to publish a clear critique of AGW by someone whose motives are not impeachable is startling. Maybe they just want to be able to show that they are “balanced”…
Stephen Hawking hardly ever has time to research climatology. If he is told that CO2 traps heat, which it does, then he’ll go the full hog and believe the models too. That’s how many of us used to believe in AGW until we saw that things are much more complex.
Whilst calling something “religious” can be an insulting attack, perhaps we are getting to the point where we start acknowledging things for what they are.
Functionally, religion tells us how we should live and what is moral and immoral.
The parts of the environmental movement which take the approach that they need to change our behavior, and change our values from consumerist to green care and “balance”, these are moral demands. They require that we place the environment as the thing which is of ultimate concern.
Bear in mind that not every traditional religion has a god figure, but they all concern themselves essentially with telling us how we should live our lives and what our moral choices should be. Environmentalism is functionally religious.
The full article is certainly worth a good read, wow!!
The second “chapter”:
2. Climate and Land Management
“Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do.”
“They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.”
He is some man.
I am going to printout the article and sit back and slowly read my way through it.
Saying “AGW exists” or “AGW does not exist” is the same is saying God does or does not exist, IMO. From my agnostic perspective, either one is plausible, but it’s UNKNOWABLE.
The analogy doesn’t work.
AGW is real, not a matter of faith. Man does contribute to climate change, and even though we must minimise our negative effects (because we can also cause positive changes) on the climate, our activities contribute to only a small portion of the perceived warming (though it is almost all in or around urban areas), not all of it as the Alarmist camp makes out.
If we were responsible for all global warming and climate change, then the Alarmists would be “deniers” of natural climate change, not the Realists/Skeptics.
Nice article, but the antiquity is wrong. Dyson published the headline article in Physics News (a suppliment co-mailed with Physics Today to APS members) criticizing global warming models (back when it wasn’t politically incorrect to say “global warming”) and arguments for anthropogenic influence a good 10 years ago.
Environmentalism is functionally religious.
And there is nothing wrong with that. Dyson said it is a religion we can all get behind. Nearly all religions have concerns about man’s impact upon the environment and wildlife. The problem is admitting that Environmentalism is a religion in the first place. Many are scared to do that because they think they won’t be taken seriously, especially the Marxists who guise themselves in Green language yet have contempt for religion.
A religion puts itself apart from the field of science, so why should Environmentalists be allowed to take part in scientific debates? So they would not call themselves a religious movement, officially.
The other problem with them declaring themselves as a religion is that they would not be allowed to guide or force government to adopt their policies because the US Constitution bars such a level of religious interference, and that they would also come into conflict with traditional religions who will want the same level of government, media and celebrity attention.
Those environmentalists who advocate Direct Action are already being equated with jihadis. And like Islamic extremists they are not so much a grassroots movement but are guided and financed by wealthy profiteers and rent seekers.
This is a great story, very uplifting! Thanks to Anthony for posting it.
The NY Times is now requiring signing in to read it, but it’s well worth the minor inconvenience to be able to read this article and compare a real scientist [who was a contemporary and friend of Oppenheimer, Bethe, Feynman, Einstein, Fermi, etc., and who unified quantum and electrodynamic theory] with some of today’s self-aggrandizing grant chasers [Mann, Hansen, etc].
Many years ago I read “Infinite in All Directions”, and was so impressed that I read all Dyson’s other books. He has a way of explaining science and the universe in a way that’s easy for anyone to understand.
rxc (01:08:38) :
wrote
“It is quite surprising that the NYT is going to publish this. I guess it will be in the Magazine, and not the science section (probably because of the length), but they are the standard-bearer of the AGW message, and to publish a clear critique of AGW by someone whose motives are not impeachable is startling. Maybe they just want to be able to show that they are “balanced”…”
Your mindset is so conspiratorial. The reporting of the NY Times reflects the fact that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe the AGW is real. I don’t see that reporting this makes them a “standard bearer”.
This story is only tangentially related to global warming. Most of It is basically the life story of Freeman Dyson, if you read the whole thing, rather than the excerpt. It is a fascinating and well written piece of work, and Dyson is a very interesting man, who could be right or wrong about global warming.
Dyson is spot-on about observation: There are critical gaps in it. The Sunspot record is one of them, and no amount of proxy-magic can replace those gaps.
I see it. Infinite in all directions, including solar.
In a world of blind models, the one-eyed observer is king.
AGW is real, not a matter of faith. Man does contribute to climate change, and even though we must minimise our negative effects (because we can also cause positive changes) on the climate, our activities contribute to only a small portion of the perceived warming (though it is almost all in or around urban areas), not all of it as the Alarmist camp makes out.
If we were responsible for all global warming and climate change, then the Alarmists would be “deniers” of natural climate change, not the Realists/Skeptics.
Who do we insist on seeing ourselves as agents of destruction? I see man as nothing more than another factor in the entire scheme of life, Earth, Sun and universe. To say man does contribute to climate change is equivalent to saying volcanoes contribute to climate change: OF COURSE THEY DO. THEY ARE BOTH (volcanoes and man) part of the entire system!
We (humans) are not creating something from nothing. I see it as a large-system conservation of matter-energy, with the Earth, Sun and Universe so large, we’re completely arrogant to think we can understand it. (Not that we shouldn’t try!)
Forget about the argument of YES/NO on AGW: Should we be making policy on it? If your answer is “yes,” then your motives are purely ego and control, and have absolutely nothing to do with saving Earth…Earth can save itself, whether we’re here or not.
If you click on the YouTube videos of Dyson, it appears that they were shot quite a while ago and are a bit out of date. (He comments that CO2 in the stratosphere is a threat to ozone, which I think is no longer believed, for instance.) In the “related videos” panel on the right of the Dyson TV screen several other global warming pro and con videos are listed. Here’s the first one of a five-part series called “Global Warming: Doomsday Called Off”:
Eric,
The fact that AGW is real does not make it consequential, and framing the argument that way misrepresents the situation. AGW is so minor that it can be disregarded. The real question is: will human produced CO2 lead to runaway global warming and a climate catastrophe? All the available evidence says No.
As you say, I suppose it’s possible that Prof. Dyson could be wrong, and therefore the UN/IPCC’s political appointees could be right. But that’s not the way to bet, is it?
I could scare you by telling you that there is a rabid dog in a bedroom in your house — and for $1,500 I will take care of the problem. Would you hand over the money, or would you want some solid evidence first?
That’s the alarming AGW situation that the public is being sold. Don’t ask questions, just hand over your money so we can save the world. Given the choice between those demanding $Billions to fix a non-problem, I prefer to trust Freeman Dyson’s view:
“There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects on the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Coal, Dyson says, contains “real pollutants” like soot, sulphur and nitrogen oxides, “really nasty stuff that makes people sick and looks ugly.” These are “rightly considered a moral evil,” he says, but they “can be reduced to low levels by scrubbers at an affordable cost.”
I could not agree more. Why do you think catalytic converters were invented for cars?
When the toxins are taken out, the effect is dramatic on cleaning up the air.
They don’t sequester C02, they convert the toxins, S02 and N02.
I really do like this man.
Scrub it, stupid. (in the vein of it’s the real toxins, stupid).
This is achievable.
AGW plans are foolish and utterly wasteful.
Go back to your superfunds, Mr. Gore.
Put some factories to work making SuperCatalytic Converters, Mr. President, and call it a day.
You’ll be glad you did.
How can you doubt climate change? Climate has always and will always change!
speaking of Physics, here is an article dealing with cosmic rays and ozone depletion. If true, do we really want to repeat the mistakes of the Montreal Protocal with CO2? I hope not……..
Correlation between Cosmic Rays and Ozone Depletion
http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/Lu-2009PRL.pdf
http://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=1668
Climate Change Cycles, Galactic Vacuum Density Waves, and the Orbital Periods of the Planets
Dr. Gerhard Löbert, Otterweg 48, 85598 Baldham, Germany. April 4, 2008.
Physicist. Recipient of The Needle of Honor of German Aeronautics.
Conveyor of a super-Einsteinian theory of gravitation that not only covers the well-known Einstein effects but also explains, among many other post-Einstein-effects, the Sun-Earth-Connection and the true cause of the global climate changes.
Abstract: In a previous Note (see Ref.) it was shown that climate change is driven by solar activity which in turn is caused by the action of galactic vacuum density waves on the core of the Sun. Irrefutable proof of the existence of these super-Einsteinian waves is given by the extremely close correlation between the changes in the mean global surface temperature and the small changes in the rotational velocity of the Earth – two physically unrelated geophysical quantities – in the past 150 years (see Fig. 2.2 of http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2787E/y2787e03.htm or Ref.). In the present Note it is shown that the orbital periods of the planets provide further evidence.
In an excellent paper by the late Dr. Theodor Landscheidt (see http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm) it was shown that the Sun’s Gleissberg activity cycles are closely correlated with the oscillations of the Sun around the center of mass of the solar system. The first and second space derivatives of the gravitational potential of the planets in the vicinity of the Sun are, however, so minute that it cannot be envisaged how the extremely slow motion of the Sun about the center of mass of the solar system could physically influence the processes within the Sun. It is much more likely that a common external agent is driving both the Gleissberg cycle and the related oscillatory barycentric motion of the Sun.
The small motion of the Sun is, of course, determined, almost entirely, by the motion of the large planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune that revolve around the Sun with periods of 11.87, 29.63, 84.67, and 165.49 years respectively. Note that the sunspot cycle has a mean period of 11.07 years (see T. Niroma in http://www.personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspot4.html) and in my previous Note “A Compilation of the Arguments that Irrefutably Prove that Climate Change is driven by Solar Activity and not by CO2 Emission” of March 6, 2008 (see Ref.), I pointed out that the mean surface temperature of the Earth is changing in a quasi-periodic manner with a mean period of 70 years, approximately. If we stipulate for the moment that there exists – in addition to the 70-years wave – a galactic vacuum density wave of 11.07 years period that is driving the sunspot cycle, then the addition of both waves leads to a periodic amplitude modulation with a period of 2/(1/11.07 – 1/70) = 26.3 years.
If two galactic gravitational wave trains of 11.07 and 70 years period were to pass through the solar system, the gravitational action of these waves on the revolving planets would slowly relocate these celestial bodies until the orbital periods were close to 11.07, 26.3, and 70 years, the periods given by the combined wave train. The orbital periods of Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus are 7%, 13%, and 20% higher than these values. A cose lock-in cannot be expected because of the gravitational actions of the neighboring planets and because of the large variability of the periods of the vacuum density wave trains (see the large variability of the sunspot and surface temperature cycles).
If one considers all of the documented sunspot cycles, the mean Gleissberg cycle length increases to 78.5 years (see T. Niroma) which is 7% smaller than the orbital period of Uranus. Note also that the orbital period of Neptune is 5% larger than 2 times the mean Gleissberg period and that of Pluto is 7% larger than 3 times Gleissberg.
Now to the remaining planets. The following table shows the ratio of the mean sunspot cycle period of 11.07 years to the planet orbital period.
Mars = 6 – 0.11 Earth = 11 + 0.07
Venus = 18 – 0.01 Mercury = 46 – 0.04
With an average error of 6% of an orbital period, the orbital periods are whole-number fractions of the mean sunspot cycle period.
As can be seen, the 11.07 years and 78.5 years galactic wave trains have brought good order into the Solar System. The degree of order increases with the number of orbital revolutions per million years.
In my opinion, the orbital periods of the planets provide — in addition to the extremely close temperature-rotation-correlation — further evidence for the existence of galactic vacuum density waves with mean long-term periods of 11.07 and 78.5 years.
Ref.: http://www.icecap.us/images/uploads/Lobert_on_CO2.pdf
This part really spoke to me: … ” The men he most admires tend to be what he calls “amateurs,” inventive spirits of uncredentialed brilliance like Bernhard Schmidt, an eccentric one-armed alcoholic telescope-lens designer;…”
I never once thought of you as being one-armed! 😉
There is enough in the article characterizing Dyson as “old”, “not a credentialed climate scientist”, “contrarian”, etc. to provide fuel for those that wish to discredit him (this is the NYT, after all). Also, he does not deny that AGW exists just that the negative effects are exaggerated and that carbon can be controlled using plants.
Particularly liked this passage: Dyson has said that it all boils down to “a deeper disagreement about values” between those who think “nature knows best” and that “any gross human disruption of the natural environment is evil,” and “humanists,” like himself, who contend that protecting the existing biosphere is not as important as fighting more repugnant evils like war, poverty and unemployment.
> If only we could get James Hansen to spend an afternoon with Freeman Dyson.
Hansen wouldn’t listen, though they might agree with various topics like there are better energy sources than coal, or a cap and trade tax with the proceeds going back to individuals would be better than one where the government keeps the money.
Personally, my thought is “If only I could get to spend an afternoon with Freeman Dyson….” 🙂
No offense intended Anthony, but I think you give James Hansen too much credit.
waclimate (23:20:27), provides a comprehensive list of historical Western Australia temperatures but fails to Hansenize the readings by applying a negative .5 to 1.0 UHI factor. Additional, he fails to account for TOBS and other corrective elements that would prove that modern warming is unprecedented and a global threat to all creatures great and small. To believe this unverified data is to relegate the old, the young, and the infirm to an uncomfortable passing through future record-setting heat waves…..unless they leave the A/C on. [sarc off}