
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.
PPS: In the NYT article, Freeman’s wife is quoted as saying that he has just recently stopped climbing trees. Now if she’d said he has just recently started climbing trees, your conjecture that he’s going ga-ga would have some traction!
Sometimes people just get crochety and opinionated as they get old.
Hmm, I can think of a few on the AGW side that describes. But the truth, Mattj, is that genius doesn’t ever follow the herd or give a toss for consensus.
JamesG (04:05:42) :
“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.”
Actually, natural gas is cheap, and getting cheaper.
http://energyguysmusings.blogspot.com/2009/02/natural-gas-glut.html
Nuclear power is far more expensive than natural gas power when nuclear is not subsidized by government.
http://energyguysmusings.blogspot.com/2009/02/nuclear-power-costs-2008.html
It seems James “Indiana” Hansen is to release a paper entitled in his words (“Worshiping the Temple of Doom”) .
‘I will send out something (“Worshiping the Temple of Doom”) on cap-and-trade soon. It is incredible how governments resist the obvious (maybe not so incredible when lobbying budgets are examined, along with Washington’s revolving doors). This is not rocket science. If we want to move toward energy independence and solve the climate problem, we need to stop subsidizing fossil fuels with the public’s money and instead place a price on carbon emissions. ‘
http://community.nytimes.com/blogs/comments/dotearth/2009/03/25/some-inconvenient-thinkers.html?s=1&pg=8
He is perfectly entitled to voice an opinion,as do the contrariness as he also states.
However the “colorful” language and timing is obvious so we can identify his “raison d’etre to influence the “press” by an instantaneous “soundbite”(and which will be in the British press within minutes of the release) and the “rent a crowd” protesters who will no doubt respray their placards for the G20 meetings this week.
Hansen also shows how his critical research is undertaken
“* The reporter left the impression that my conclusions are based mainly on climate models. I always try to make clear that our conclusions are based on #1 Earth’s history, how it responded to forcings in the past, #2 observations of what is happening now, #3 models. Here is the actual note that I sent to the reporter after hanging up on him:
I looked up Freeman Dyson on Wikipedia, which describes his views on “global warming” as below. If that is an accurate description of what he is saying now, it is actually quite reasonable (I had heard that he is just another contrarian). However, this also indicates that he is under the mistaken impression that concern about global warming is based on climate models, which in reality play little role in our understanding — our understanding is based mainly on how the Earth responded to changes of boundary conditions in the past and on how it is responding to on-going changes.”
But paleoclimatic studies tell us that we are not sure of the initial conditions,and as historical behavior in ALL dynamic systems is sensitive to initial conditions we can only use the studies to tell us of the stationary states of the historical past(and where often higher temperature states are present when CO2 Is lower eg Pliocence) so the paradox is the rule) When we imitate equations of motion the error rises exponentially introducing a temporal horizon .
It is said that people get the politicians they deserve. If so, the people in the U.S. must have been very, very naughty.
Wow! Finally a smart person who doesn’t believe that Climate Change is a problem. Just goes to show that you can be smart and wrong. Dyson doesn’t think it’s a problem because for him it’s not. He is 85+. But if he were young and living in an area dependent on glacial runoff, like many highly populated areas, (China, India) or an area which faces destruction of coastal cities, like billions planet-wide, he might think otherwise.
M Cope,
You don’t know much about the subject of this site, do you?
I’m a big believer in visual aids. And I’m here to help newbies:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
click6
click7
click8
click9
click10
You can quit worrying about “climate change.” The climate always changes. And there’s nothing you or anyone else can do about it.
Joe Romm and Thomas Friedman are launching the heavy ad hominem artillery against that NYT article.
I posted the following on Romm’s Climate Progress:
“how can anyone take a post seriously that has the insulting title “Freeman Dyson, Climate Crackpot” – an ad hominem attack like that simply does not deserve any response or discussion; neither does Thomas Friedman’s slander of NICHOLAS DAWIDOFF’s well-balanced NYT article”.
Wonder how long it will stay up…
seems like the whole thread was removed…