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.
“MattJ (16:48:14) : But WHAT has he done since then? And HOW is any of that relevant expertise to issues of climatology and atmospheric science?”
Hello Matt,
How old is James Hansen? And, is he a climatologist?
“Smokey (18:00:50) : MattJ (16:48:14) commits the ultimate completely baseless ad hominem attack.”
Haven’t you heard, this is the novel attack. This is as far as guys like Matt can go–the latest thing they’ve read on the internet.
Don’t worry, he’ll jump on board the next angle of attack too.
evanmjones (18:57:29) :
This, and more, will be in the guest post? Put in plenty of pictures, they’re always fun. 😉
Anyone who would rather know what Dyson really thinks, please refer to the source:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html
Dyson NEVER said that GW does not happen. What he said is that modelers overestimate the effects of CO2 on GW. He NEVER said that GW is not produced by human activity. He said that AGW is not necessarily bad.
Read the Oregon Petition: It does *NOT* say that GW or AGW do not exist. It says that the Kyoto agreement would have been detrimental to the economy, and the GW is not harmful – which is VERY different than saying that GW does NOT exist!
MattJ (16:48:14) :
“You guys are missing the point. Dyson’s expertise WAS theoretical physics. He was one of the pioneers of Quantum Electrodynamics, the “Strange theory of the interaction of light with matter”, and prototype for ALL Quantum Field Theories, which are so important both to all particle physics and to attempts to discover a quantum theory of gravity.
But WHAT has he done since then? And HOW is any of that relevant expertise to issues of climatology and atmospheric science?”
Nyet, you miss the point.
FD sat down and designed from scratch. Patented a nuclear reactor in 3 months that was designed and built and licensed in under 3 years.
He wrote “Origins of Life,” every bit as complete as “Schrödinger’s” what is life with the hypotheseis of the double origin (one for the hardware and one for the software) including some interesting suggestions on molecular chirality.
He has substantial work on both theoretical and engineering solutions for space research,including optics.
Lets compare him with, say, a climate scientist such as Tobis, who orchestrated a rather vitriolic attack in the NYT.
http://www.ig.utexas.edu/people/staff/tobis/
If they are his selected papers after 20 years, I would suggest the University ask for their money back.
Papers published by students of moscow mathematical boarding school number 18 have more scientific significance than those.
On one side of the spectrum, there’s the eminently reasonable Freeman Dyson. On the other side, there are these legislators who want to ban black cars because they threaten the cuddly Polar bears by making their A/C run longer: click
Dyson NEVER said that GW does not happen. What he said is that modelers overestimate the effects of CO2 on GW. He NEVER said that GW is not produced by human activity. He said that AGW is not necessarily bad.
Read the Oregon Petition: It does *NOT* say that GW or AGW do not exist. It says that the Kyoto agreement would have been detrimental to the economy, and the GW is not harmful – which is VERY different than saying that GW does NOT exist!
This is what we say every day so what are you saying?
Here is what the British education system thinks of science
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7966688.stm
Another update…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090326/sc_afp/environmentusclimatewarminglead;_ylt=AsqVyWoKP7_dWwWuVriEbbxpl88F
Note the distortion in the first paragraph “…Congress was told to ignore his plan because climate change does not exist.”
Who said climate change does not exist? Surely not the people mentioned in the article.
Domingo,
It sounds like you may “getting it”? The words you have written precisely explain the way most here think about AGW. We agree with Dyson.
1)GW is/has been happening…
2)Modellers do overestimate the effects of CO2 on climate…
3)A part of GW is caused by man…
4)GW is not necessarily bad…
5)The Kyoto agreement would have been detrimental to the economy…
6)GW is not harmful…
If you agree with Dyson, you agree with almost everyone here. Please stop trying to pull the unwary into agreeing with your outlandish statements.
Welcome aboard,
Mike Bryant
Darwin (11:03:23)
Apples with apples. I think you’ll find that nuclear facilities are about the same distance from population centres as wind farms are. And any that aren’t darn well should be. As for the costs, that’s the point, I’d like to know just what are the real costs per Joule, without all the disinformation and bias. Wind farms should keep chugging along just as well as nuclear in theory. There are just too many people denigrating one technology while blind to the failings of their favourite. Most arguments I’ve seen against wind power are totally risible. Noisy, ugly, bird killers? Utter rubbish! Costly? Just looking at them you’d think they really should be cheaper than nuclear Joule for Joule, even assuming just 30% uptime.
India are going for thorium, since they have a lot of it. Again that’s the point – we should use what we have in abundance; geothermal, wind, solar, thorium. Coal will still be needed but we still need more energy in the future than coal can supply.
This here is pure communist rationing
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/03/on_my_last_entry_tandf1.html
There are fools actually naive enough to think that by living in a rationed society that we can maintain most freedoms by abandoning some freedoms.
Actually there’s another wind strawman – that wind power is miles from populations. Anyone who says that has to ignore that wind as a fuel doesn’t have to be dug up, processed, distilled, pressurized, sent through pipelines, transported by ship etc to get to the power plant in the first place. So it’s actually a closer fuel source than any of the alternatives bar geothermal. Not quite the impression you’re given is it? Not that I’m excessively pro-wind, I’m just anti-propaganda. People don’t seem to think too much about the whole picture, who’s shoveling the disinformation and why they might be doing it.
Another cute bit of dis/misinformation is that environmentalists stopped nuclear power in Europe. It was actually an easy decision to go with gas because it was much cheaper at the time once privatisation had uncovered all those hidden costs of nuclear. Now of course gas isn’t so cheap and is getting scarce, which is the main reason that the UK is switching back to nuclear, it’s nothing to do with global warming – that’s just rhetoric to please the chattering classes.
JamesG, I agree with you.
The only thing about wind power is that it is entirely inadequate to the task of supporting modern civilization. Without subsidies, the sight of a windmill would be a tourist attraction, instead of wind farms being a blight on the landscape — as snobbish elitists like Kennedy and Gore attest.
And coal is, by far, one of the very best all-around fuels that exists in the world, bar none:
1. Coal is very inexpensive. The world’s poor need inexpensive warmth, because without inexpensive heat many would actually die of the cold. The poor also need inexpensive electricity. Try using a washboard some time.
2. Coal emissions using scrubber technology are extremely clean. Scrubbers remove 99.999% of all particulates, leaving only combustion byproducts of mostly CO2 and some H2O. Coal emissions are on a par with natural gas emissions. The pictures shown by anti-coal propagandists, with clouds of black smoke belching out into the sky, are false. In reality, there are no visible emissions from coal plant stacks.
3. Coal use adds beneficial CO2 to an atmosphere that is starved of CO2, boosting plant growth. The notion that changing the non-CO2 portion of the atmosphere from 99.00038 to 99.00050 will cause calamity is nonsense. A little more of this beneficial trace gas will go a long way in making this a better world for both plants and animals. And it will help the poor more than anyone. Being anti-coal is being anti-poor people. But then, enviros have never given a damn about the less fortunate.
The U.S. alone has over five centuries of coal reserves at present rates of use. It is irresponsible to leave it in the ground, thereby putting an added burden on the poor [and on the rest of us] who don’t need the extra expense.
“Domingo Tavella (19:46:23) : which is VERY different than saying that GW does NOT exist!”
No one ever said the globe didnt warm. Why do you guys keep bringing that up? Are you deniers that no one says the earth didn’t warm?
Smokey
You might be pleasantly surprised to learn that the Greenpeace energy plan (downloadable from their site) projects coal use at the same level pretty much for the remainder of the century or until it runs out, principally for the same reason that you state – that poverty reduction requires it. It’s the kneejerk anti-capitalists who don’t seem to give a hoot about the poor in the world. Yes some of these nutjobs have attached themselves to green organizations but there are still many real environmentalists on the ground helping the poor out directly via appropriate technology, and not just loftily talking about it. Environmentalists have been hoodwinked by these grant-chasing scientists just as much as anyone else and it’s a great shame because it has detracted attention from other important environmental issues which are real.
Obama’s appointment for NOAA chief administrator, Jane Lubchenko, will be a real advocate for climate change regulation. She was confirmed on March 19.
http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=122423
She’s smart. A recipient of MacArthur “Genius” award, background in Marine ecology, and has held a leadership position with the Pew Foundation. Pew grants underwrite several environmental groups masquerading under other names. One of these is presently battling Maine’s marine fishing industry.
More to the point, now that she’s in office, she promises to be a “non-advocacy” administrator for “science”. How sincerely she intends to hew to the scientific objectivity can be seen in the mission statement of her website, “Climate Central”, where John Holdren served (s?) as the president of her board of directors.
http://www.climatecentral.org/about.html
In other words she has been and likely will continue to be a marketer for AGW. No surprise, I suppose.
JamesG,
1.14B short tons of coal were extracted in the US in 2007 (per US EIA). Reserves are estimated at 489B short tons (Jan 2008 EIA). At current digging and usage, thats a 400 year supply.
Greenpeace may state there are hundreds of years coal supply, it does not stop them from fighting the construction of new coal fired power plants. Their website states coal is “dirty” and “fuels global warming” and is a “threat to our health and environment” – http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/coal
The GP energy plan I looked at had coal and nukes gone by 2050, replaced by a miraculous 95% renewables. Seems fairly unrealistic.
Bit of EU bashing while we are at it, and Vaclac Klaus has something to say about it
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2009/03/25/my_speech_to_gordon_brown_goes_viral
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2009/03/26/vaclav_klaus_warns_against_the_eus_soviet_tendencies
evanmjones (22:27:33) :
Take the one about how CO2 output was flat (or even declined) during WWII.
So, no spike in CO2? And if not, no loud questions as to why not? Even on this blog?
There wasn’t much of spike in CO2 output during WWII (at least not from energy use)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type_to_Y2004.png
More like a recovery to pre-depression rates. What little spike there is (a few million metric tons of carbon) would only change atmospheric CO2 levels by less than 1 ppm.
Not enough to even be noticed.
Did anyone figure out how Dyson got the minimum digits solution in his head to that problem mentioned in the article (an integer where moving the least significant digit to the most significant digit doubles it)?
I could work out how to get the answer but no way do the arithmetic to produce it in a few seconds without a pen & paper.
I think the smallest such integer is 105263157894736842
Doubling it has an interesting property!
“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.’ ”
READ THE LAST STATEMENT. JACKPOT!
Chris
Norfolk, VA
An excellent piece and it appears – a turning point for the New York Times and their until-recent staunch support for the global warming myth. However, as the head science writer for the Times newspaper, Andy Revkin recently blogged:
“Some Inconvenient Thinkers. On climate, Mr. Dyson may be right or wrong, and pretty much admits that.”
Which stirred the hornets at Climate Progress to this stinging invective:
“It is one thing for the puff-piece profilers at the NYT magazine to give the eccentric Dr. Dyson a forum and a free pass to say whatever anti-scientific nonsense comes into his head at the moment — but if the top climate science reporter for the entire New York Times thinks “Dyson may be right,” then may be the newspaper should simply dump their entire climate-reporting staff and start from scratch.
Note to Andy: You have simply gone too on this one. I call on you to retract that statement.”
As we have noted to Mr. Revkin, the Times Climate reporting is mostly concerned with population – a legitimate concern. It is our suggestion that the Times and Mr. Revkin redirect their Climate section to address the population issue head on. Thinking people on Earth can handle it. And, without the burden of fictional climate disaster hanging over our heads – we can better address the issues directly responsible for population imbalance.
Somewhat OT, I’ve had the pleasure of a brief discussion with Professor Dyson during a celebration of John Wheeler’s birthday. He is immediately fascinating and, per this story, even a bit “puckish” – to his infinite credit.
MattJ: Dyson seems to be a polymath and a “quick study” who has read and written on a wide variety of scientific topics.
He’s not just spouting off his head on the climate issue. He collaborated with scientists at Oak Ridge in studying it decades ago. He’s doubtless, I trust, read the main “pro” literature, and discussed and debated the matter with knowledgeable scientists.
PS to Matt:
Here’s a link to Amazon’s listing of Dyson’s numerous books on scientific topics:
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=freeman+dyson&x=0&y=0
Here’s the link to the NYT article, copied from the top of this thread, which should disabuse you of some of your concerns about Dyson’s with-it-ness:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all
Here’s a link to his article “Heretical Thoughts and Climate Change”
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html
More like a recovery to pre-depression rates. What little spike there is (a few million metric tons of carbon) would only change atmospheric CO2 levels by less than 1 ppm.
Not enough to even be noticed.
No, I don’t buy it, for a number of reasons, which I’ll get into later. But thanks for the link.