The Global Warming Heretic

theodp writes "In The Civil Heretic, the NYT Magazine takes a look at how world-renowned scientist Freeman Dyson wound up opposing those who care most about global warming. Since coming out of the closet on global warming, Dyson has found himself described as 'a pompous twit,' 'a blowhard,' and 'a mad scientist.' He argues that climate change has become an obsession for 'a worldwide secular religion' known as environmentalism. Dyson has been particularly dismissive of Al Gore, calling him climate change's chief propagandist and accusing him of relying too heavily on computer-generated climate models and promoting 'lousy science' that's distracting attention from more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet." Dyson himself wrote about the need for heretics in science not long ago.

Comments

Thank goodness

[DarkOx]

Global Warmin is bad science, as a general rule. If you look at most studies past the title they all play fast and loose. There is some good work being done for sure; but its been turned into a Religion, and the facts are thin, and or simply made up.

After it was revealed the Hocky-stick report was done with largely fictious data I don't understand how the public can stick behind this garbage. They just cling to the hope of their lord and master Barrack and the Queen of the Damned herself Nacy; and gobble up anything their pathetic pitchmand Gore says. You know he actually was quoted saying "I am not going to let science get in the way", why anybody takes anything these people say seriously without first independantly verifying it is beyond me.

Dyson on the other hand is a great thinker who has done great science, real science and knows how its suppose to work. Hopefully people will take him as seriously as they do their false prophets.

Re:Thank goodness

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I have to agree with you (and Dyson). Al Gore looses his argument as soon as he says that a concensus has been reached.

Yes, as soon as he says that a consensus has been reached, that argument is loosed.

Science simply doesn't work that way! Then he follows up with "the discussions are over." No they are not. Real science is a process of ALWAYS questioning your theories and assumptions and going where the evidence leads.

Yes, there is always room for more science and theories to be revised. That does not, however, change the fact that the consensus of scientific evidence and experimentation to date is the only rational belief and making claims that we need to do more science while refusing to take actions based upon the existing evidence is a strategy of failure and denial. Since we can always do more scientific experimentation, at some point we need to accept that the preponderance of evidence is unlikely to change, relative to the ramifications of inaction.

There is some evidence that there is some heating. The evidence that it is caused by CO2 or is man-made is tenuous at best!

Even Dyson acknowledges that there is real global warming going on and that it is probably the result of CO2. He just disagrees about the predictions of how much temperatures are likely to change and how quickly. The most well supported scientific theory to date, is that global warming is partly caused by the actions of man, including CO2 emissions. Every true scientist should believe that until we have a better theory with more data. To do otherwise is forming opinions unscientifically.

Depending on computer models that are not historically consitant[sic] is also ludicrous.

Historically consistent? Have you been watching Fox "news" or something? The computer models I've seen are all predicated upon historical data.

All you really need to do is look at the prediction results for a Hurricane track.

That's funny. I was just reading a New Scientist article by a meteorologist specializing in computer models of hurricane activity complaining about how hurricane modeling is so often mistaken by the press for general climatology models, when in truth none of the general climatology models in use make predictions on small enough of a scale to predict a given hurricane season.

Further - a lot of the data that they use for their arguments of warming are things like the temperature readings in the US - where it has been proven that a goodly chunk of these numbers are biased by Urbanization, but the numbers haven't been corrected for this affect!

Really? All the main studies I've seen account for many different sources of temperature, many relying largely upon ocean temperature readings. What study (still being used) are you referring to?

Personally, I don't have a vested interest in the global warming debate. It's outside my expertise, but something I follow. For me it is more interesting from a propaganda perspective. I lump it in with evolution. Both topics are well supported by the evidence, more so than many scientific theories accepted by pretty much everyone to be facts at this point. Both are overwhelmingly supported in one direction from experts in the field and scientific journals. The real difference from other scientific subjects is that there is a huge, well funded propaganda campaign being waged to convince not scientists, but the general public that the consensus of scientists is wrong, or more subtly that what is the consensus is not really so and that there is still a real debate among the experts.

His story is typical.

[glitch23]

Any time someone has a dissenting opinion against a liberal the liberal only seems capable of defending their argument with insults and threats. In the past, some scientists who have came out against global warming actually received death threats. The sad thing is that the evidence for global warming is subjective and yet people think they should make death threats to defend it. The same immature responses occur when liberals are arguing about religion. They believe they are always right and if you aren't on their side you must be stupid, your PhD backing your credibility is actually worthless, and you must be a member of the sheeple party. Liberals don't have a higher level of thinking to get past the subjectivity of the evidence they rely on to make their case. That very well may be the reason they attack those who do have the higher level of thinking. That hearkens back to school days where the stupid kids are the bullies. A lot of times those kids also had broken homes but a correlation I believe exists between their intelligence and their personality trait that makes them lash out as their only defense mechanism.

Hocky-stick report ..

[rs232]

'After it was revealed the Hocky-stick report was done with largely fictious data'

According to this the report was later endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences after a concerted effort to discredit its findings and the reputation of its authors.

Gore says. You know he actually was quoted saying "I am not going to let science get in the way"

Where did he say that and in what context. Citations ??

Re: Yeah, well, they also got mad at Galileo.

[shaitand]

'And God knows there are a sh*tload of mediocre minds involved with gerbil wormening'

Sorry, you lost all credibility when you capitalized god.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Rakshasa Taisab]

It's not Europe cause it's Western Europe?...

Fine, more than one can play that game. You don't live in Europe, you live in Hungary.

Re:There is money and publicity

[ArcherB]

> Don't forget the Ozone layer.

Because of early warnings, we were able to halt the destruction of the ozone layer.

> We were all supposed to be long dead from skin cancer by now.

For some people in Australia, this is still true.

> 1970's Smog

People being killed annually by smog are counted by the thousands.

> I wonder why I no longer buy it.

Because you're an idiot?

Bullshit! The ozone "hole" was originally found over the poles because we suddenly had the ability to see it via satellites. Scientists scrambled to understand why and blamed everyone's favorite boogy man, ourselves. After all, we all know that everything that happens is a direct result of our actions, right? Isn't that how the raid dance came to be? Anyway, everyone freaked and banned CFC's. Then, the hole closed and everyone said, "See, it was the CFC's. We banned them and saved the world." just like you did. Then the hole opened again, and scientists wondered why. Finally, they figured out that the hole opened and closed based on a natural cycle.

Over the course of two to three months, approximately 50% of the total column amount of ozone in the atmosphere disappears. At some levels, the losses approach 90%. This has come to be called the Antarctic ozone hole.

In spring, temperatures begin to rise, the ice evaporates, and the ozone layer starts to recover.

Sure, you're going to see many scientists claim that it was the ban on CFC's that saved the world. Then again, what are they going to say? "OOOOPSie! My bad! Sorry for the alarm everyone. Please go back to using your deodorant spray's and air conditioners." Of course they won't. They put their credibility on the line and they are not going to give that up now. They have grants to earn.

So, please. Don't call people who you disagree with names like, "idiot". It appears that you didn't have all the facts and just made yourself look like a "sheeple" that believes whatever the networks tell you to believe. Please, learn to think for yourself and don't attempt to insult those that already do.

Please extend this reply to everyone else that said a CFC ban saved the world. Also, expect that when global warming DOES NOT destroy the earth, people will say the same thing, replacing CFC with Carbon.

Re:There is money and publicity

[GodfatherofSoul]

Off-topic, but the same tactic is being used with the Recession. There are people claiming that we don't have to do anything and the economy will fix itself (free market and all that you know?). So, when things start improving, they'll just claim that it would've happened anyway.

CNBC, I'm looking at your hosts.

Hmmm. I wonder why I no longer buy it.

I'll go one further. The grandfather is stupid.

Re:North Central United States

[codepunk]

I wish I where as smart as you sir, perhaps I could figure out how you just disproved my theory with two paragraphs worth of utter bullshit.

I am sorry I will head over to You Tube so I can watch a true scientist (Al Gore) describe the armageddon we will endure within the next ten years if we
don't buy his book.

+5 Funny

Re:There is money and publicity

[Anonymous Coward]

"One of the reasons for the famine in Ethiopia in the 80's were the number of aerosols that were emitted by the western nations."
You have no proof of that, only your belief in a tenuous connection that exists nowhere except in your mind.

"Luckily we cut many of the particle emissions and the rains eventually came back."
Just like the sun comes back after an eclipse. Thanks for being there, priest!! What would we have done without you?

Re:There is money and publicity

[Walkingshark]

While I could't think less of his daughter (hi Estie!) I couldn't think more of Freeman. And if you look at the times he's been wrong before (oh, there aren't any) and think about what he says in terms of the context of actual life dynamics you'll see he's not wrong this time.

This doesn't mean we should be free to pollute but as pointed out in Jurassic Park "life finds a way".

Why do so many people think that knowing a lot and being really good with one field of science in any way qualifies you to speak with credability about another field of science?

You lack the ability to properly judge the credability of a claim at a fundamental level. You are what is called "credulous." You believe something because 1) it agrees with your current opinion and 2) because the person making the claim is respected, even if they aren't respected in relation to the claim they're making.

Strip the name Freeman Dyson off the article and see if it is worthy based solely on the claims made and arguments presented. If you can't manage to do that, you should immidiately stop voting and sterilize yourself.

Re:Man-made global warming is a hoax?

[kholburn]

Junk science is a good name for a climate change denying website funded by oil and energy money. Every one of your "facts" are rubbish. Why bother with the "man-made" if climate change is a hoax?

Re:North Central United States

[Jack9]

Calling my logical argument "bullshit" does not address any of the points I made.

You made no points. Anyone who read your "response" is now dumber for it.

Re:There is money and publicity

[GodfatherofSoul]

And, what you're not realizing is that we're in this situation because of DEREGULATION! The repeal of Glass-Spiegel led to the wild-eyed speculation of markets and the laissez faire attitude of the Bush administration encouraged even more pushing of the rules. We knew about Maddof for YEARS.

Re:There is money and publicity

[PakProtector]

Maybe you don't know anything about logic, but I'll let you in on a secret: It's not up to me to prove the other guy's argument. That's his job. He does that by supplying proofs and evidence.

I am perfectly capable of using Google, you ass. However, it's not my job to make someone's argument for them.