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

There is money and publicity

[mevets]

in fighting the prevailing wind. Credibility will end up tattered, but when your alternative is wage parity with taxi drivers, not such a bad choice. Rail on you rebel you.

Re:There is money and publicity

[glueball]

There's big money in pushing global warming, too.

Re:There is money and publicity

[polar red]

maybe now, the last 2-3 years. Did you make the same argument the 20 years before that ?

Re:There is money and publicity

[Anonymous Coward]

No, because 20 years ago Global Cooling was the buzzword :)

Re:There is money and publicity

[glueball]

Did you make the same argument the 20 years before that ?
No. The hysteria was not at profitable levels 10 years ago.

20 years ago was the hysteria over acid rain.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Anonymous Coward]

[citation needed]

Don't quote wikipedia to prove a point. Quote what it quotes.

Re:There is money and publicity

[tie_guy_matt]

In the seventies people were just begining to look at the problem. Also, back then aerosols emmitted by diesel engines and coal power plants were affecting climate change more than green house gases. People started to filter the particles when they realized that the particles tend to do things like cause cancer. Once the particles were blocked the earth started warming.

But anyway, what you are saying is that since the quick conclusion that people came up with when the study of climate change was in its infancy were wrong, all of the work and research that the worlds tops scientists did for the next 30+ years must also be wrong as well? I guess that argument makes sense if you don't think about it for more than 15 minutes.

Re:There is money and publicity

[ArcherB]

I remember a report in National Geographic about 5 years ago, and documentaries on TV that said Europe with increased global warming would become cold!

We are having the same kind of weather and explanations for it here in America as well.

It goes like this:

When it's hot, it's because of global warming. When it's cold, it's because of global warming.

Let me tell you something that is 100% FACT! The climate is going to change. It always has, and it always will. No matter what happens, there will be people who ignore the fact that the climate has changed since the Earth began to cool and blame whatever changes they see now on the activities of man. It's the height of arrogance!

Re:There is money and publicity

[sumdumass]

I can make the argument for you. In 1988 when the global warming alarmism started moving along, it parralelled a push to forgive the third world debt that was largely caused by the oil crisis in the 1970's when OPEC decided to halt sales to the US over it's support for Israel who just kicked their asses.

Anyways, to stay on topic, in 1992, the global warming issue had been hijacked by the third world debt issues and the product of this can be seen by 1994 with the first attempts to draft the Kyoto accords. Of course this was all highly secretive and the US attempted to assemble and international climate panel to prove that global warming was the cause of man (more specifically, first world industrialized nations). The movement to forgive the third world debt started disapearing as the Kyoto accords started nearing release. In 1998 it had almost completely evaporated but by then, they had most of europe convinced it needed to sign on to Kyoto.

Now when we examine Kyoto we find several things. Of the 157 some countries that have signed on to it, only 36-37 (if you count the US) have caps on their Co2 production and a few of those caps were placed at rated higher then they were currently emitting. The numbers I posted may be off by a couple because I'm rambling from memory but they accurately represent the differences and anyone wanting to look can find it easily. Anyways, of the 37 or so countries, they placed limits to 1990 levels of Co2 production but claimed that all man made Co2 was in excess of the natural cycles and causing global warming. Now you can look at this and see right now that the goal of the Kyoto protocol wasn't necessarily to stop global warming because it only addressed a portion of the Co2 coming from some of the richest nations. The same nations BTW that owned the third world debt.

But is gets worse. Knowing, and yes, we have years of data to back this up but knowing that the population generally increases (*with the exception of Germany which is almost a negative population growth rate) you can see that it would be almost impossible to go back 10 years in carbon production while the needs of the people are constantly increasing. If you cut 10 people's carbon footprint by 30% over 20 years and during that 20 years, 3 more people are added to the group, their 70% contribution negates all savings from the 30%reduction. So there was a trigger built in to Kyoto that allowed member nations to offset their Co2 production by buying Carbon credits from the third world nations or to invest into those third world nations by moving industry there. This creates a revenue base that allows the third world nations to pay off their debt but it totally ignores the issue of Co2 production being bad for the environment. In short, it says if the rich industrialized nations want to stay comfortable, they have to pay more and invest in the poorer third world countries. Currently, most of Europe has chosen to use Chine and India to outsource their pollution and help meet their goals and it can be seen by their increased pollution emissions. China has or is about to pass the US in emissions and they have no caps whatsoever at all. The remaining 130 some countries who have started becoming major polluters too, are in line for this type of boost.

So even if global warming is real and it is the threat that it has been claimed, the political solutions have been hijacked from the start for reasons of money. And those reasons are huge. The sums of money involved are well above any oil companies profits or savings you will see from traditional energy compared to the more expensive alternative sources.

People have moved past that redistribution of wealth, greed has kicked in, and you have people like Al Gore selling carbon offsets to himself or people with the potential to make billions from outdated technology (yes, solar was invented in the 1800's, failed to be practical or cost effective in the 50's,60's,70's and 80's, Wind was actually replaced by coal in the 1920's though the 1950's) if they can

Re:There is money and publicity

[odourpreventer]

> 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?

Re:There is money and publicity

[HertzaHaeon]

Smog, the ozone layer and acid rain are not alarming problems anymore because we actually did something about them.

They were all fought with emission standards and regulations that forced the industry to adapt.

Besides the obvious environmental benefits, you get stuff like fridges that not only are ozone-friendly, but are much more efficient than before.

Global warming can be dealt with and will likewise bring us benefits. But we have to do something about it.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Chris Burke]

Don't forget the Ozone layer. We were all supposed to be long dead from skin cancer by now.

That makes as much sense as saying "Don't forget about leaded gasoline! We were all supposed to be dead from its emissions by now!"

What an amazing world we live in where:
1) Experts predict disaster if a problem is ignored.
2) Problem is solved rather than ignored.
3) Disaster is averted.
4) Mentally challenged "skeptics" believe the problem never existed in the first place.

I bet you think there was nothing to Y2K either, do you? Or think nothing has changed vis-a-vis smog since the 70s? Or that acid rain isn't a problem?

Hmmm. I wonder why I no longer buy it.

Because you have chosen to do so, and have quite effectively shielded yourself from seeing why you came to the exactly wrong conclusion.

Re:There is money and publicity

[PopeRatzo]

Let's see...
1970's Smog
1980's Ozone layer
1990's Acid Rain
2000's Global Warming

The funny thing is that all of the issues you mention are actually worse today.

If you want to see smog, just take a look at all the people who have to wear breathing apparatus in many cities in the Far East. Ozone Layer? Look at the skin cancer rates in Australia. Acid Rain? Check the amount of aluminum in the drinking water in Toronto.

If there hadn't been efforts to combat those first three that started in earnest in the late 70's, there'd probably be three dead Great Lakes.

I'm surprised how many people believe that there is huge money in climate science. They hear about the billions that are being spent by the energy industry to try to convince people there's no harm in burning coal, petroleum and the hundreds of thousands that an environmental reasearcher could possibly receive in a grant and they think: "oh, it's the same thing". Dumb fucks.

It's about 2pm here in Chicago, and I've already read 8 comments from people with UIDs below 999999 who don't seem to know the difference between weather and climate.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Vexar]

You forgot to mention that the state in which Al Gore has his primary residence, it is the largest single family home on record. Something insane like 10,000 a square foot house for him and his wife goes unnoticed on principle when doling out the embarrassment that once was the Nobel Prize. Still, that is smaller than the 54,000 square foot house that Barack Obama has in Washington DC.

Nice post. So, my question is this: are you saying the political movement that is Global Warming is more along the lines of Global Socialism?

Re:There is money and publicity

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you think there was nothing to Y2K either, do you?

And I bet you're forgetting all the wild claims about how Y2K would affect the world outside of the financial markets.

Does anyone else remember all the wild claims about how Y2K would cause elevators to catastrophically fail, and missiles to launch, just because they contained computer chips?

I'm not saying Y2K and global warming aren't real, I'm saying it's still important to separate the facts from the half-truths and outright lies that alarmists spread for their own gain.

Re:There is money and publicity

[JWSmythe]

    But, your list is perfect.

    Each and every item was worked on with global agreement.

    Smog was reduced by making cleaner running vehicles and cleaner industry.

    The ozone layer reduction was helped by virtually outlawing CFC's.

    Acid rain, again was reduced by the work done with vehicles and industry.

    And global warming will have a man made reduction, or else we'll reap the benefits of it. Once humanity is decimated, it's effects will be mitigated. Either that, or we'll do something about it.

    The whole argument of is there or isn't there is irrelevant. The end result by treating global warming as a problem is a good one, regardless of if you believe in the reason or not. We will have a cleaner environment, which is something I wouldn't mind at all. But hey, if you love pollution, fire up a nice smokey fire in your fireplace with the flue shut, and start up your car with the garage door shut. You'll have plenty of pollution in no time, in the comfort of your own home. Light up a nice fat cigar, and take a few deep breaths. Ahhh.. Nirvana.. right?

   

Re:There is money and publicity

[shadowbearer]

  The desire to profit off of potential misfortune or calamity is at least as old as human civilization.

  While what you said above may be true, it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not global warming is really happening. It does point out just how ignorant and greedy people can be.

SB

Re:There is money and publicity

[moderatorrater]

I think the valid point buried in their bullshit is that climate change is still in its infancy, and yet we're looking at drastic changes because of it. Studies still can't tell us definitively what will happen when the climate actually changes and they can't even come close. Will the increased warming trigger cooling or will it start a feedback loop where small warming triggers much larger trends? Will it cause an increase or a decrease in the rainfall across farmlands? Hell, we can't even tell if warming up to this point averted another ice age or not. IMHO, it's a valid criticism, although one used most often by people who are ignorant of most of the science anyway.

Re:There is money and publicity

[naasking]

But is gets worse. Knowing, and yes, we have years of data to back this up but knowing that the population generally increases (*with the exception of Germany which is almost a negative population growth rate) [...]

No, just about every affluent country has negative population growth. The total populations of affluent countries are increasing only due to immigration.

Paradoxically, spreading a more energy-consuming lifestyle, ie. a higher standard of living, would result in lower or negative total population growth to the point where our energy needs may also stabilize. This is also disregarding advances in efficiency, which do come along now and again.

Or our energy needs may continually increase. Hard to say really. What is certain however, is that the harder it is to develop more energy sources, the more expensive energy will become, and our energy consumption will plateau from that alone (and likely drive more developments in efficiency). Basic economics.

Re:There is money and publicity

[anaesthetica]

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 [sic] about another field of science?

Because the scientific method is universal? Because the ability to methodically apply reasoned skepticism is not the privileged domain of hermetic specialists?

Re:There is money and publicity

[mariox19]

Free-market advocates don't claim that "the economy" will fix itself. What they point out is that each individual, in response to a recession, begins to change his or her economic behavior: this includes investors, business owners, managers, skilled workers, unskilled workers, and individuals spending their money on consumer goods. In this way, people, working individually, redirect their economic activity away from bad investments to good investments. In each case, the actions of each exist within a larger context: namely, the actions of other individuals. This context coordinates economic activity; and as each individual seeks gains rather than losses, the end result will be a reorganization of economic activity that will end the recession.

In other words, the economy doesn't fix itself; the individuals, each working within their own sphere, fix the economy. This activity will still attempt go on whether the government does anything or not. What free-market advocates argue is that government can only hinder this activity and, in doing so, the recovery.

So, yes, unless government manages to completely destroy the economy, when things start improving, free-market advocates will claim that the recovery would have happened anyway; and it is completely consistent with their understanding of economics to do so. It will not have been government that fixed the economy, but those elements of the free-market that remained unhampered by government.

Re:There is money and publicity

[arminw]

..a majority of the scientists...

Of course, once upon a time the majority of scientists thought the earth was at the center of the universe. The majority of doctors and medical scientists believed that disease was caused by bad air and fought early pioneers and advocates of rigorous cleanliness in hospitals tooth and nail. The majority of cosmologists today believes that electricity plays no role whatsoever in the large-scale operation of the universe. Some of them will desperately oppose anyone who even breathes the word "electric" or "plasma" in connection with cosmology or astrophysics.

Since when has the majority had a corner on truth? Has it ever been? No? Well maybe the majority is wrong here also. When it comes to science, the stupidest thing I know of toward the validity of any scientific statement or argument is to invoke the majority.

In the case of global warming, the majority is clearly wrong, once again, as usual. The Earth has cycled between warmer and cooler for ages. Where, for example, did all that carbon comes from that is stored in the fossil fuel we burn today and have yet to burn? How does the carbon, along with hydrogen become hydrocarbons? Why do we call it fossil fuel? Is that not all solar energy stored as chemical energy? What mechanisms converted and stored this chemical energy, if not photosynthesis? Today, plants get the carbon they need to grow from the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Where did the plants of long-ago which we now burn in our gas tanks and power plants get their carbon dioxide they needed for the process of photosynthesis?

If we burned every possible gram a fossil fuel, would that not return Earth's conditions to what they were before the fossil fuels were formed in the first place? If that happened suddenly, it would be rather catastrophic, but not if it took place over many generations of humans.

Re:There is money and publicity

[TapeCutter]

Pretending something hasn't been wieghed and measured is a common tactic used by people who don't like what the science tells them and haven't got the balls to question their dogma.

Re:There is money and publicity

[ScrewMaster]

regulation of the free market caused this mess (housing bubble, subprime lending).

That's not really true. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 had a lot to do with it, and it did so by making the market freer. In essence, it repealed portions of the original Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which was put in place to limit some of the banking practices that contributed to the Great Depression. At least, that's how I understand it ... anyone who knows better feel free to correct me.

Truth is, a totally free market doesn't work, at least, it doesn't work unless you happen to be at top of the corporate food chain. In a previous century they called that laissez faire, and it didn't work. Look, like it or not we need the institution of government and the corporations that provide goods and services require regulation. The people that run them have demonstrated unequivocally that they cannot be trusted with our lives or livelihoods without some form of governmental controls in place.

We just have to make sure that that regulation works for all of us.

Re:There is money and publicity

[MaskedSlacker]

I'm burning all of the mod points I just used to say this:

Laissez faire is a policy. 'Free market' is a mathematical model.

Repealing Glass-Steagall did NOT make the market more free.

'Free market' does not refer solely to the absence of government regulation it refers to the mathematical assumptions that the model is based on:

1)Full transparency--all buyers and sellers know and understand exactly what they are buying and selling.

By repealing Glass-Steagall and not regulating CDOs the government actually decreased the transparency of the market making it LESS free.

2)Full mobility of goods -- this is the one that government regulation usually interferes with by compartmentalizing and breaking markets in goods and labor.

The argument behind the 'free market' as a policy goal is that the model is maximally efficient--we get the largest amount of goods and services from a particular quantity of resources. However, LAISSEZ FAIRE != FREE MARKET, mostly because of the transparency point. In the 1800s, this was less the case than it is to day, owing simply to the radical change in the sophistication of our technology since that time--most people don't understand how the things they buy work, and are completely unqualified to judge whether the products they buy are any good--which is a massive decrease in transparency. Add in the nature of modern advertising, a practice which is inherently designed to decrease transparency and you have a situation that is far more complicated than the old intellectually bankrupt ideologies would have you think.

Re:There is money and publicity

[mariox19]

No. Deregulation is what we need more of. What we need less of -- in fact, none of -- is government favoring some businesses (notably, huge quasi-governmental businesses) over others, and government fiddling with the money supply by promoting so-called "easy money" policies.

We're in this mess because government created two huge entities, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mac, subsidized them with all kinds of tax breaks and anti-competitive advantages, fueled them with tons of inflationary credit, and then encouraged irresponsibility and certain, eventual loss by directing them to make bad loans to people with poor credit, all the while winking to investors all over the world that they never need worry about these banks failing because the US government would write any checks necessary to keep them solvent.

This was the beginning of the speculation in housing, which led to the secondary speculation in mortgage instruments. What hurt was not deregulation, but government favoritism and a policy of socializing losses.

Pro-capitalist is not the same as "pro-business," when pro-business has come to mean Washington gets in bed with big business and writes laws to favor their buddies. That's cronyism. Capitalism means government stays out of the economy completely.

Re:There is money and publicity

[nabsltd]

The fact that climate change now has a great deal of non-scientists talking and writing about it basically means the following have been invoked:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. —Clarke's first law

When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervor and emotion—the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, probably right. —Asimov's corollary to Clarke's first law

Basically, this means that as more of the general public state that global warming is fact, it is more likely that the scientists who state that more study is needed are actually correct.

Re:There is money and publicity

[tick-tock-atona]

Your post displays breathtaking ignorance

..a majority of the scientists...

Of course, once upon a time the majority of scientists thought the earth was at the center of the universe.

No they didn't. The majority of people thought that the earth was at the centre of the universe. Of course this was before the discipline known as "science", the scientific method and all that comes with that. Most people used religion to explain the unknown and religion decreed that the earth was at the centre of the universe.

The majority of doctors and medical scientists believed that disease was caused by bad air and fought early pioneers and advocates of rigorous cleanliness in hospitals tooth and nail. The majority of cosmologists today believes that electricity plays no role whatsoever in the large-scale operation of the universe. Some of them will desperately oppose anyone who even breathes the word "electric" or "plasma" in connection with cosmology or astrophysics.

Since when has the majority had a corner on truth? Has it ever been? No? Well maybe the majority is wrong here also. When it comes to science, the stupidest thing I know of toward the validity of any scientific statement or argument is to invoke the majority.

The mistake you make here is to mistake the majority of evidence with the majority of people . In the examples you cite, scientific methods had not been devised, and so it is valid to claim them as examples of historical ignorance. In the case of global warming however, there is an enormous majority of evidence in favour of global warming, which is what climate scientists base their opinions on.

In the case of global warming, the majority is clearly wrong, once again, as usual. The Earth has cycled between warmer and cooler for ages. Where, for example, did all that carbon comes from that is stored in the fossil fuel we burn today and have yet to burn? How does the carbon, along with hydrogen become hydrocarbons? Why do we call it fossil fuel? Is that not all solar energy stored as chemical energy? What mechanisms converted and stored this chemical energy, if not photosynthesis? Today, plants get the carbon they need to grow from the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Where did the plants of long-ago which we now burn in our gas tanks and power plants get their carbon dioxide they needed for the process of photosynthesis?

If we burned every possible gram a fossil fuel, would that not return Earth's conditions to what they were before the fossil fuels were formed in the first place?

Yes it might. Prior to the evolution of photosynthesis, approximately 3.4 billion years ago, the sun was up to 1/3 dimmer than it is now, however due to the effects of greenhouse gases (much higher than at any other time in earth's history), temperatures were comparable to today. Interestingly, carbonate rocks from this period are rare, as the oceans were far more acidic than they are now. So if we were to revert to this, say goodbye to pretty much the entire oceanic food chain, and possibly your ability to breathe.

If that happened suddenly, it would be rather catastrophic, but not if it took place over many generations of humans.

Once again, the changes from those conditions to today's took place over 3.4 billion years. We are seeing changes occur due to human activity on timescales which are several orders of magnitude shorter than this.

Please go and educate yourself on these issues - not just for your own sake, but for everyone else's too because your vote is worth the same as mine.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Hognoxious]

Of course this was before the discipline known as "science", the scientific method and all that comes with that.

So can you tell me the precise date (am or pm) that science was invented and scientific method arrived at - and how?

And if "scientists" didn't previously believe the geocentric model (which at least some did, like Ptolemey), why all the fuss about Copernicus?

Repent now, the end is near

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how since the beginning of history, groups of people have been claiming that the world is going to end. And it keeps not happening.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[Adrian Lopez]

The world will go on, but humanity might not.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Every single measurement of the "climate" is not a unrelated sources. There are no climatologist suggesting the end of anything. A few feet of water and a few degrees and perhaps some rain pattern changes *worst case*. How the hell is that going to even get close to end of the world bunk?

Re: Repent now, the end is near

[Alwin Henseler]

Funny how since the beginning of history, groups of people have been claiming that the world is going to end. And it keeps not happening.

That holds true whatever we do. If mankind would turn this planet into a radioactive, toxic wasteland that's uninhabitable for humans or animals, we might just succeed in making ourselves extinct (like the dinosaurs). Given enough time, environmental conditions would change/improve and other lifeforms would rule the planet. 'Mother earth' will be fine regardless.

But perhaps it's better to look at climate change as a simple cost problem. Raised CO2 levels might cause higher global temperatures, sea level rise, more often occuring weather extremes, droughts, crop losses etc. And from that: property damage, hunger disasters, armed conflicts and so on. The total of all these effects could be a huge price to pay, if ignored.

The problem is 2-fold:

• It's often impossible to calculate all actual costs / benefits for any of your actions, due to the many (invisible) factors/effects involved, and
• Much of that cost will be paid by other people than the ones doing the damage. That's true for many environmentally-destructive activities.

So is there an optimum, and how to determine it? Simple answer: perhaps, but impossible to calculate, or enforce. All you can do is make educated guesses, and stay on the safe side.

But IMHO there's nothing wrong with doing that as much as possible. If you build a new house or office building, make it as energy-efficient as reasonably possible (using existing tech or innovate along the way). If you buy a new car, make the fuel-efficiency among your top priorities, regardless of current fuel prices. If you have to route traffic trough an existing forest, build eco-friendly railroad first, before putting down a 5-line highway.

And what's optimal then? My guess is somewhere between 'going overboard' and 'relaxed, gradual, pro-active measures'. To be decided by improving ways to calculate total, real costs, and charging those parties causing them.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[binary paladin]

We've killed God around here so people need some fiction to replace it. The people around here, for instance, have global warming. (And when that's not enough, someone always starts up a conversation about superior programming styles or paradigms, which is far more religious than any tent revival I've ever seen.)

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[orzetto]

First off, no one has ever said that "global warming will mark the world's end". Its consequences are claimed to be very expensive to handle, involve lots of suffering, massive displacements of populations and annexed refugee problems (see recent Bangladesh flooding pattern).

Second, it is also funny how since the beginning of history, groups of people have been claiming that the world is just fine:

• Don't worry, that horse is a sign of the gods! Break the wall to let it pass!
• Barbarians? How could that be a problem for the largest empire of the world?
• Nah, the Turks are only talking—we Armenians will just have to endure some insults, like all the other times, that's all.
• They've been persecuting us for almost two millennia now, yet we're still here.
• Ivan, run this test tomorrow night on reactor 4. Stop whining about safety, nothing bad ever happened before.
• Levee maintenance? Oh please, every how many years do we get a Cat 5?

Predicting doom may or may not be right. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it does not. It is the merit of the question that has to be addressed, and if the consequences are claimed to be serious it should be a case for increased attention, not discredit.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[n dot l]

Funny how since the beginning of history, groups of people have been claiming that the world is going to end. And it keeps not happening.

That depends on your definition of "world". Sure, the planet's still here, but there are a lot of cities, religions, races, and empires (in essence: ways of life) which have died or been destroyed. If your civilization was where a desert is now, and you're watching the unending drout destroy everything you know, how do you express that? Or if you see that your nation's trade is falling apart, the military is too small, the people are as likely to start killing and looting each other as they are to band together to pull through a crisis, the barbarians are massing at the borders, and the emperor won't do a goddamn thing because he's off having a drunken orgy with his friends?

Honestly, it comes down to this: if you are about to die, and everything you know about the world - everything you have worked to build - is about to vanish, then what's the difference, from your point of view, between the whole world ending or just your tiny little corner of said world?

If we're going to make the implicit assumption that the past keeps repeating, then may I point out that no civilization has ever survived intact forever. At best they are replaced by something vaguely similar, but even then only after periods of chaos and suffering on a monumental scale. At worst we find a stone tablet somewhere praising king X for wiping out every man, woman, and child in neighboring city Y in only a day.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[sumdumass]

The issues as I see it is that those problems won't happen over night. They will be gradually phased in over time and humans are more then capable of adapting and engineering around nature.

You know, it isn't much different then florida, it's water table is severely close to the surface yet we have buildings with basements. It gets pounded with several hurricanes each year and after the mid 80's (Ivan I think) the building codes were adjusted and now the buildings are damaged instead of destroyed. Warning systems have been put in place and now people have time to evacuate the dangers as they come buy as well as places to go. Florida still is one of the top agriculture producing states in the US.

Yet when people start talking about dealing with the effects of global warming instead of mitigating the problems, they are called shills for BigOil, idiots and so on. New Orleans was a failure of government to act and/or act properly. There is no reason to believe that in 100 years when the oceans have risen 3 foot that dams and levies can't be in place, that building codes won't reflect the new environment or that people won't be farming new lands and producing food in places it hasn't been before. Humans adapt, we have this ability to not only use tools but to think about the use of a tool and build better tools to use. It's not like one day we will wake up and realize that no one did anything.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[dontmakemethink]

However there are numerous examples of the propagation of fear for the purpose of controlling the masses. 9/11 is dubious at best, no WMD's were found in Iraq, and there is no tangible evidence that greenhouse gasses represent a significant cause of global warming compared to a natural phenomenon. The Earth has been much warmer in the past and had much higher CO2 levels prior to industrialization, which is exactly why dinosaurs were so enormous, they needed enormous air cavities to extract sufficient oxygen.

I am still an environmental advocate, since there is also no reason to make things any worse, but really, do Americans actually have anything to fear from Iraqis or "terrorists"? There are plenty of those who benefited immensely and are capable of perpetrating such frauds on the American public. I don't claim that's what happened, I merely do not accept the story fed us by Fox news unchallenged, and there are too many unexplained holes.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[BlackSabbath]

"A few feet of water"
- can mean massive problems for those in the Pacific islands, Holland, London and other very low lying areas, or where they are already fighting to keep water out.

"a few degrees"
- of the *average*. Says nothing about minima/maxima. But can be the difference between crops being viable or not. Can be the difference between methane laden permafrost staying frozen or not. Can mean much less Arctic sea ice, massively reducing the albedo/reflectivity provided by the ice cover (the last two we are actually seeing and are reinforcing GW).

"some rain pattern changes"
- can mean that rainfall no longer falls over catchment areas (we're seeing this a lot in south-east Australia). Urban areas can easily become unviable in such circumstances (or alternatively resort to building massive desal plants like we are).

No one is predicting the "end of the world". But claiming that "a few degrees" has no effect just trumpets your ignorance.

History...

[sogoodsofarsowhat]

will of course prove him right. But that wont stop the scam that is going on. Im all for conservation and greener technologies. But this is not what is driving the Global Warming folks. Its good old MONEY/POWER. History will show Dyson to be a man of enlightened thinking, a beacon of reason. Course it will be only long after hes gone. Ask Galileo. It takes a truly great society to accept the great thinkers in their time. Plato?

Re:History...

[FauxPasIII]

> Im all for conservation and greener technologies.
> But this is not what is driving the Global Warming folks.

Speak for yourself. That's _exactly_ why I'm in so strongly favor of listening to the overwhelming consensus of climatologists.

Re:History...

[AJWM]

Actually climatologists are pretty divided on the whole global warming issue -- they understand the details a whole lot better than the hordes of laymen or non-climatalogist scientists who keep shouting about it.

Re:History...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they're really not divided. A small number of people disagree, and have spread this idea that there's a lack of consensus.

Which isn't to say that dissenting opinions are bad, quite the contrary. But its important to look at their sources of data and what they chose to ignore or dismiss.

Re:History...

[TheTurtlesMoves]

consensus!=(science || scientific method)

Re:History...

[FauxPasIII]

> The 'consensus' has been wrong before and they will be wrong again.

And in this case, if we follow the consensus and it turns out they're wrong, the consequences of that are what?

We've dramatically cleaned up our environment, achieved energy independence, freed ourselves from the political constraints of fossil fuels and massively bolstered our economy with a whole new class of green businesses.

Explain again why you're so against this?

Re:History...

[Totenglocke]

Bolster our economy? Hardly. If we do the things many global warming proponents want, it will destroy our economy through insanely high taxes on current energy, likely resort in massive energy shortages (face it, solar / wind / hydro just don't produce the amount of power that coal / oil does), and cause technology to stagnate for who knows how long.

I always recycle, I drive a car that gets close to 40 mpg, don't waste electricity, etc but I'm not going to risk damning our society just because spreading fear is a great way to make money / gain political power and people realised that if they start shouting "the human race will die out / the planet will die if you don't do what we tell you to" that they'll have all the money and power they could ever imagine.

Re:History...

[Anonymous Coward]

And we have a 50% unemployment rate, fuel rationing, energy caps per household and a government in the U.S.A. that now dictates everything about business.

Then again that is exactly what the current administration is heading us too.

Most people want exactly what you say until you start putting reality in to the equation. Once you say that Gas would cost 5 to 10X as much as it does now and that we will probably be back to the Jimmy Carter era, they tend to not want this. Now "if" you are talking about making nuclear power a real alternative in the U.S.A. then that is another discussion. However, I would be willing to bet the environmentalist would have an issue with that.
   

Re:History...

[Anonymous Coward]

I just love these ever changing rationales for presenting the same wrong position.

1) Global warming is about stealing political power and money.

2) There is no consensus among climatologists anyway, it's about a 50/50 split among members of the field.

3) No it is not, the dissenters among the climatological sciences are small in number and use selective (cherry picked) data.

4) Science is not about consensus, anyway.

And on and on it goes.

Nowhere is there evidence presented in this thread that global warming is about government theft: it's just stated as an uncited fact. The claim of a 50/50 split among Climatologists is easily debunked. So, that claim becomes unimportant.

The Slashdot community enjoys referring to itself as smart - as if it is some oasis of genius - while everyone else must thus be comparably stupid. But one look at these threads shows that the community - and especially the comments modded up by those community members - has absolutely no idea of the intricacies being discussed. As Feynman would have said: You're not even wrong.

Sadly, this community has become filled with egocentric ignoramuses. You're one of them.
 

Re:History...

[TheTurtlesMoves]

I was simply pointing out that if you want to make a scientific point you can't use a consensus argument. Its a political one. There comes a time when the discussion dose become political, and then perhaps a consensus is relevant. But it is still not a scientific argument.

My bone to pick with the whole thing is that its *only* political now. Even when discussing with fellow scientists. Which is a shame really.

Re:History...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. You're using any and every argument at your disposal, regardless of factual veracity. It's called: sophistry.

Re:History...

[ducomputergeek]

Waste of economic resources that could have been spent elsewhere. Want an example? Last year we had money left in the bank where I work. If the employees took anymore home in pay, it would have bumped us up a tax bracket and we would have made less after taxes. So what were our options?

A) We could retain earnings, watch 50% of it go to the government in the form of corporate income tax.
B) We could donate to a local charity, such as the food bank or Good Samaritan House.
C) We could put up Solar Panels to cut our utility bills and free up cash flow.

We chose C. We saw a slight uptick in business from the environmental who saw us as going "green" and how great that was for everyone. Maybe Michael Gecko was right: "Greed is good." Because we didn't do it to be green. We did it to be greedy and save money.

Now let's say 25 years from now, Global Warming turns out to be nothing more than a lot of hot air from enviromentalists. We've spent Billions (or Trillions) of dollars on green technologies. Great. But if Global Warming turns out to just be hot air and nothing more, what else could we have done with those Billions or Trillions? Feed the homeless? Provide universal heath-care? Funded a cure for AIDs and the common cold? What was the opportunity cost?

Sorry if I take global warming with a grain of salt. I remember being a kid an the wackos coming to my school, telling us kids how bad McDonalds was for using styrofoam containers because they weren't "Bio-degradable". Then McDonalds switches to wax paper, which is just as bad if not worse.

I honestly believe that Global Warming has more to do with natural cycles than what we've done. Have we aided and abetted? Yeah, probably. But what no body seems to be saying is that we're on course for another major Ice age because:

A) Some of the climatologist are right and the global temperature spikes just before an ice age.
B) Enough polar ice melts to affect the ocean's salinity and the Atlantic Conveyor breaks down.

beacon of hope

[okooolo]

I dread the day we stop questioning ourselves

Re:beacon of hope

[JeanBaptiste]

Joke

----

You

"heretic"

[Anonymous Coward]

A heretic is a person that believes in the same thing, but has their own angle not following the exact doctrines. However, the church has managed to change the public perception of the word into something so extreme, it's as bad as falling out of the devil's bottom and calling yourself jesus or some other mythical character.

Heretics are GOOD

[DreamsAreOkToo]

A lot of time in Science, you see people get aggressive towards dissenters of the popular opinion. Not aggressive in a good way, mind you. Heretics are GOOD because they strengthen or destroy good/bad science.

Just remember that next time you read an ID article ;-)

Re:Heretics are GOOD

[shaitand]

ID isn't science, good or bad.

Professor Dyson is a very smart man

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, he also happens to be wrong. He is a lone voice who has never published or conducted any research in Climatology; it is not his field. Those who insult and demean Dyson because of his views engage in abhorrent rhetoric. But the fact that some crazy people engage in abusive conduct does not make Professor Dyson's scientific views on this issue correct. It simply means that some people are assholes.

I'm sorry. There is a strong sentiment among slashdotters that Global Warming is bunk. Which shows just how ignorant the population at slashdot really is (never mind the general public).

Re:Professor Dyson is a very smart man

[TheTurtlesMoves]

.. who has never published or conducted any research in Climatology;

Neither has Al Gore.

Re:Professor Dyson is a very smart man

[Enahs]

See, here's what people are getting at. Since you seem to be quick to lean on the idiot's crutch of using profanity and intimidation in lieu of intelligent discourse, I'll keep this as simple as possible.

Someone like, say, Michael Chrighton, or Freeman Dyson, is vilified for speaking out against AGW, especially given their lack of expertise in climatology.

Al Gore, however, is treated like a hero, despite having not only no experience in climatology, but his total lack of scientific expertise, because he espouses an opinion for which there is scientific consensus.

Have you got it, or do you need it to be further dumbed down?

Its all a LIE for MONEY & Control

[MrHyd3]

Its all about control and taxation. Taking from the haves and giving it to HAVE NOTS by force. SUN SPOT cycles have more control over our environment than all humans combined. The Earth has had COLD and WARM cycles centuries before the SUV was created.

Re:Its all a LIE for MONEY & Control

[polar red]

your claim has been debunked. before. lots of times.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/11/climatechange.climatechange1

Yawn

[jamie]

Oh look. Another non-climate-scientist who thinks nearly all of the climate scientists are wrong about the climate.

Non-experts who disagree with experts are a dime a dozen in any field, but for some reason, global warming seems to be the only field where they make headlines. Wonder why that is.

The sports writer who for some reason was tasked with writing this science article let Dyson get away with a couple of groaners. One was his comment:

The warming, he says, is not global but local, "making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter."

Climate scientists will be the first to tell you that global warming affects the poles disproportionately. That doesn't make it "local" -- and the fact that those words are not in quotes suggests to me that Dyson never said it. Dyson seems well aware that the climate is, in fact, warming.

Dyson's wrong to repeat the "global cooling" myth, and in his Salon interview a couple of years ago, he was wrong to assert that polar bear populations are increasing. But then, he didn't almost win the Nobel Prize for Polar Bears. He's undoubtedly a genius when it comes to physics, but why does the media love to find global-warming contrarians who are not experts on global warming? There's a question I'd like to see explored.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

And you see, this is why they look at the global warming deniers, and think, "Are you goddamn retards?". Since when is pointing out flaws in reasoning or fact and requiring actual evidence to back up their claims "silencing dissent"? Questioning the prevailing view is all fine and good, as long as it has some basis in reality and you're not just pulling shit out of your ass.

Re:Yawn

[Dr. Spork]

I agree that the "debunker" movement is mainly composed of shills and idiots. Vaclav Klaus, my president, is one of the idiots. The "global cooling scientists" are paid shills.

Freeman Dyson is neither. Bjorn Lomborg is neither. You shouldn't judge them by the company they keep.

Re:Yawn

[Belial6]

The problem with that example is that clearly, most of those that are "experts" in economics are also so ignorant of economics that it is laughable.

Re:Yawn

[Walkingshark]

Story time!

One time, I was driving from Texas to Florida, it was the middle of the night, and we were somewhere deep in the dark swamps of Louisiana. This was before MP3 players and I didn't have a CD player in my car, and all I could find on the FM dial was country music, so I was running a scan on the AM band when I heard someone talking. Starved for entertainment after hours in the car, I tuned in to hear this preacher talking about evolution.

So I start listening to this guy talk about how evolution was a bunch of crap because of the Bible and all the usual stuff, and then he gets all serious for a minute and he's starts telling his listeners that not only does the bible disprove evolution, but so do SCIENTISTS!

Yes, thats right, all kinds of famous SCIENTISTS think evolution is just wrong! These are highly regarded, credible SCIENTISTS! He then starts naming names.

My response, naturally, was to laugh uncontrolably as he starts running down a list including such legendary biologists as Sigmund Frued, Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, Galileo, and a whole raft of other people, many of whom were born and died before Darwin and none of whom were biologists. Not even one.

This is just that again. An appeal based on the credability of a SCIENTIST that is inherently a fallacy because there are different types of SCIENTIST, and specialization in one field has nothing to do with competence in another.

Al Gore, through virtue of reading and studying the subject for decades, knows more about climate science and is vastly more qualified to talk about it than Freeman Dyson. This whole thing is just more propaganda from climate change deniers who, I am beggining to suspect, are having their puppet strings pulled by some seriously malthusian ultra-rich people who think the planet would be nicer if it didn't have quite so many messy people on it.

Re:Yawn

[Garse Janacek]

I was there in the 70s, and I remember Global Cooling as well. The revisionist claims that there was no such panic are part of my reason for being extremely distrustful of the global warming cabal..err, "consensus".

I've read a number of "I was there! I remember the panic!" posts over the years on slashdot, and yet I've still never seen any of them who were able to point to any significant body of actual scientific research that supports it. Media distortion of scientific research is easy to find. Can you point to actual scientists (preferably peer-reviewed) who were suggesting this was a serious danger?

Since the claim is evidently that there was a "panic" about the whole thing, realistically to support it you'd need a fairly broad citation list, at least several papers (or a couple papers that cite several others)... but I'd be interested to see if there was more than one, or even one paper, that both (1) shows evidence that global temperatures are cooling, and (2) makes any kind of prediction that this trend will continue in such a way as to pose a serious danger (not necessarily an absolute doomsday prediction, a serious suggestion would suffice, but it should be a serious suggestion and not just "we should probably study this some more to see if..." -- otherwise it in no way compares to the level of widespread confidence among climatologists today on global warming).

Pointing to old media articles is not a substitute for this kind of evidence, nor is "I was there and I remember" good enough unless there is some additional evidence that what you "remember" is scientific consensus and not media alarmism.

Re:The last 50 years or so, summarized.

[DarkOx]

"Inconvenient Truth" ah yes one of the most widely debunked documentaries in recent years that now I am convienced oh wait no I am not,

F**k off hippie

Climate, pollution and consequences.

[Narpak]

While I will wholeheartedly agree that there are dogmatic idiots on both sides of this issue. And while I have no personal experience or knowledge on how, what and why things happen the way they do; I feel that those supporting doing nothing and ignoring any potential problem related to global warming and increased pollution are sticking their heads in the sand.

This isn't just about Environmental Nutters (though there are plenty of those); it's about responsible use of our resources and how to dispose of any waste generated. Continually, and increasingly, dumping chemicals and pumping exhaust from cars and factories into the atmosphere is not a positive thing. Our planet is big, and the problems related to increased pollution builds up over time; but it is absolutely clear in my mind that we can't keep doing what we do; there are simply too many people on the planet for it to magically absorb and breakdown all our waste (especially at the level we now generate and discard it).

Basically my point is that investing and researching more energy efficient ways is a good thing. Cutting down on consumption, and perhaps thinking a bit more about the stability and continuity of our ecosystem is a good thing.

Re:Climate, pollution and consequences.

[Narpak]

When it comes to "innocent until proven guilty" I am more in favour of a "sceptical until proven safe" in relation to Co2 or pollutants. And in a marginally capitalist society taxation is one of the tools available to regulate the level of such.

However, it should be noted, that for me it isn't as much a debate about climate (which I feel is affected by our waste); but about the build up of chemicals in the ecosystem. Many of these by-products of our industry and consumption are building up in water, air and most importantly (to me anyway) inside the human body. There is no doubt in my mind that the insufficient oversight of how industrial waste is handled is directly related to a range of health issues (like cancer and asthma). In short the accumulation of waste (industrial or otherwise) can have serious long-term negative consequences for us; simply saying "innocent until proven guilty" seems a bit simplistic to me.

Not out of his mind, just not terribly rooted in r

[SmallFurryCreature]

He hasn't lost his mind, it just ain't particullary rooted in reality. Never was.

His solution should CO2 become a problem? Plant trees.

Forest around the world are being cut down. Where would we plant not just the trees to replace the ones we had last year but the ones we need extra? He doesn't so much deny that CO2 is a potential problem but seems to think planting lots of trees is the answer without apparenly ever having thought about how we are supposed to do that. Great minds are like that, they can think about immense and complex things we can't fathom, but can't quite grasp that the world can't just turn farmland into forests.

"Bio-tech, he writes in his book, Infinite in All Directions (1988), offers us the chance to imitate natures speed and flexibility, and he imagines the furniture and art that people will grow for themselves, the pet dinosaurs they will grow for their children, along with an idiosyncratic menagerie of genetically engineered cousins of the carbon-eating tree: termites to consume derelict automobiles, a potato capable of flourishing on the dry red surfaces of Mars, a collision-avoiding car."

A potato that grown on Mars. How nice. And how do we get there einstein? This is the kind of stuff we read about 20 years ago that would be with us in 20 years. It is flying cars. As well all know, they don't exist and probably never will. Why? Because they are practical.

Enviromentalists like Al Gore have to be practical. They are dealing with the very real effects of ricing sea levels NOW because you can't just build higher dikes when they have been destroyed by a storm. That is for instance the problems in Holland right now. As a country we are more then rich enough to raise the dikes but we need to do it NOW when the danger is years or even decades away because it will take years and even decades to finish and worse, if the predictions are to conservative, then those higher dikes might be needed sooner rather then later. You can't just plant a lot of trees if Dyson is wrong in 30 years. By then it will be to late.

That is the real problem with the supposed climate change. Say we follow Al Gore and there turns out not to be a problem. We would have wasted lots of money. Say we don't follow Al Gore and he is right, then we are in deep shit and it is to late to do anything about it. That is roughly the left and the right. The left want to be save and pay insurance now. The right wants to keep their money and their childeren be damned.

Re:Thank goodness

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Who mods this stuff up as informative? This seems a lot closer to flambait to me. It mentions (but doesn't cite) what seems to be a fictitious quote from Gore and makes reference to "lord and master Barrack". If that isn't inflammatory, what is it? The whole thing is misinformation and ad hominem/argumentum ad verecundiam.

Bad studies don't support the opposite case. There was a flawed study on global warming (assuming one agrees with such an assessment) somehow makes all the other studies on the subject less credible or valid? Anyone making such a claim doesn't understand how science works.

We need opposition with DATA

[damn_registrars]

It is one thing to oppose an idea because you dislike it or you distrust it. There is no shortage of people running around claiming global warming to be total FUD.

However, there is a distinct shortage of people who are actually able to provide DATA to support their opposition to it. There is a significant difference between saying "I don't agree with that data" and "I have this data set that shows that data set is wrong". Global warming, by definition, is based on the global mean temperature of the earth. Plenty of people try to go for statements like "it snowed in Atlanta, so global warming must be BS"; though of course a statement like that ignores the global aspect of global warming.

As I don't have a NY Times account, I could not read the article provided. Can anyone tell us, did he actually provide meaningful data, or is he just criticizing the existing data?

Re:We need opposition with DATA

[John Hasler]

> He's not a climatologist. He has never done research on global warming. He has
> absolutely no data of his own. He is not an expert in this field.

Whereas Al Gore is a ???

Although I still think global warming real...

[John Hasler]

...and human-caused, Dyson has far more credibility with me than Gore does.

Re:Thank goodness

[grahamd0]

Well whether it's bad science or not, it at least encourages humanity to clean up our act.

The truth doesn't matter as long as everyone else lives by your standards?

You should get into politics.

give me a break

[damn_registrars]

Why that biased partisan rant posing as a comment was moderated to (+5, insightful) is beyond me.

Global Warmin is bad science, as a general rule

And that statement is bad English, as a general rule. The word is Warming, not Warmin. If you want to be taken seriously please avoid slang.

facts are thin, and or simply made up

Can you provide a specific example?

the Hocky-stick report was done with largely fictious data

OK, you gave an example, that is a start. Care to tell us why you call it "largely fictious" (sic) data? Can you point to a data set that specifically disproves it?

I don't understand how the public can stick behind this garbage

You aren't helping your cause when you just keep criticizing people without providing a reason to believe your argument.

their lord and master Barrack

You really are doing yourself a disservice, here.

And the first name of the current President of the United States is Barack. Please, learn to spell it correctly.

Queen of the Damned herself Nacy;

Cute. Her name is Nancy, if you are talking about the speaker of the house.

Though again you do yourself no service by going for insults rather than information.

pathetic pitchmand Gore says

I suspect you wanted the word pitchman?

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

Do you have a source for that quote?

why anybody takes anything these people say seriously without first independantly verifying it is beyond me.

You would do yourself well to take your own advice and provide some verification for your own claims.

Dyson on the other hand is a great thinker who has done great science

Again, a source would be nice.

Skeptics are usually crackpots

[s-whs]

Skeptics, here in the Netherlands, are almost exclusively people who are not working in even a related field, or retired. Now, being retired means you have no more career/position to worry about, and for many such people apparently the 'old boys network' of friends is more important than actual science. It's nicely summed up here in a response to an article in the Volkskrant (2007.1.11) about some "scientists who say the cimate problem isn't caused by humans":

http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/bericht/100021

But on examining their credentials, they aren't really scientists, or if they are, well, they actually *were* (i.e. retired) or the few that still are, are so in some completely unrelated field. Then their arguments don't hold up (because they don't actually give hard facts and reasons), etc. The article that was published in the paper is what's referred to as an 'opinion piece".

I've checked out several other people on the 'skeptic' side, and never seen a proper argument, but plenty of nonsens and unbelievably inane arguments that would be a disgrace to a five-year old kid.

What Dyson himself said in a previous slashdot article makes me see him in the same light:

Dyson: There is no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer, but the warming is not global

No need: due to extra CO2 more energy is being stored in the earth, could be water warming up, etc. Also, ocean currents could change, which would mean an ice age in Europe despite global warming is possible. The average temperature goes up though. And that's what's meant by global warming.

Dyson: When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories.

He shouldn't listen to public debates! That's almost always not where real science is done or shown.

Whether global global warming really is a problem or not, you need to take it seriously and try to pollute as little as possible, because it's moronic to gamble with this one ecosystem we have.

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

[Avumede]

Your post above is an excellent example of the Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

Re:Read his actual opinions

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone with a phd in physics has gone through a rigorous exploration of science and understanding. A man of Dyson's standing in the physics field is more then qualified to take any truly scientific theory and analyze it for its strengths and problems. I fully admit his analysis will not be as in depth as someone who has wasted years of their life studding climate change; but, with his grasp and understanding of basic science he will be able to point out flaws in logic and shoddy results. You know kind of like asking an electrical engineer why the bridge built out of swiss cheese isn't holding up very well.

Personally, having gone through a much more watered down education in getting my phd in physics then Dyson, I actually respect his analysis on climate change more then most of the real climate change 'scientists'.

But the real data is worse than the models predict

[presidenteloco]

Particularly unfortunate then that the real data over the last decade has been showing across several indicators that the reality of warming is worse than the consensus model interpretations are predicting.

So he may be right that the models are inaccurate, but the general theory of the greenhouse effect is simple and correct, and is impacting us more than models guessed.

Bravo!

[Brandybuck]

Bravo Freeman! It's about time a scientist of this stature declared that the emperor has no clothes. This is an issue that has NOT been driven by science, but driven by control freaks in government and fearmongers in the press.

Lest you immediately rush out to stone me, I am not denying that climate change is occurring. I know the climate is changing, because that is what the climate does! Yet I am still skeptical of the details that the press and government have oversensationalized.We have had significant warm and cool spells in recorded history, as significant as what we are being warned against. Yet the planet was not destroyed.

Even the silly non-science doesn't bother me much. What I object to are the government "solutions" to this crisis. I've seen solutions that range from banning black cars, to banning all cars entirely. They all involve using police and courts and jails to take freedom away from people. Government isn't about helping people, it's about controlling their lives. Government does perform some useful services, but above a certain size it all gets drowned out by the evil.

The real heresy isn't denying global warming, it's denying that government is the appropriate solution to every problem in life.

Mod parent up

[orzetto]

Of course, his opinion on this seems utterly pointless to me. The man is a physicist, specializing in solid-state and quantum physics. He's no more qualified to analyze the science behind climate change than an electrical engineer is to build a bridge.

... and get this sentence engraved on every global-warming sceptic's monitor. It will be big news when a climatologist actually publishes research disproving global warming in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Re:Environmental Nutters

[presidenteloco]

Why is a person who is aware of and opposed to the large-scale destructive effects and massive alterations we are having on Earth's ecosystems and climate called a "nutter" (translation for US audience: "Crazy wackjob")

whereas

someone who is either ignorant of these problems, incapable of comprehending them and rationally analyzing them, or willfully denying our negative environmental effects in order to selfishly further a comfortable but unethical and unsustainable lifestyle,
is presumeable called a normal sane member of society?

Things that make you go hmmmmmmm.

Linus Pauling

[hachete]

Yes, one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century - a greater scientist than Freeman Dyson if one counts Nobel Prizes - and for years he kept banging on about Vitamin C as a cure for cancer. At one time, he even put his wife through the treatment. Vitamin C as a cure for cancer is baloney. Pauling wasn't a nutritionist.

If you dab your toe in a field outside your expertise, you're liable to get it bitten off. I wouldn't take the advice of a Doctor of medicine on writing PERL.

Re:Linus Pauling

[Chris Burke]

So, we should take the advice of a former politician who is now an environmentalist?

No, dumbass, you should take the advice of climatologists when it comes to the climate. If Al fucking Gore is not your preferred mechanism for finding out what climatologists say, then maybe you should try something else. I don't know, you could read a book or a journal or something. I hear scientists sometimes publish those.

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

[yali]

I wish I had mod points to mod you up. I don't. So instead I'll quote this guy:

In Dawidoff's piece, Dyson comes off as a classic contrarian, sounding off late in life. A journalist with a scientific background would know how important it is to take such people with a grain of salt-no matter how distinguished their scientific work may be in other areas. Dawidoff, though, just goes for it-for 8,000 words of it. He writes foolish things like this: "[Dyson's] dissension from the orthodoxy of global warming is significant because of his stature and his devotion to the integrity of science." Um, no, it isn't. It isn't significant at all. Dyson's fame and authority don't buy him any special deference in this area; science does not work that way.

Same old same old.

[smoker2]

I posted my position on this on the Hungry Crustaceans topic the other day. Look at the graphs, look at historical records in the rocks. Ask yourselves, did we cause global warming or are we merely part of it ? I think the graphs speak for themselves. The hockey stick graph is a lie because it makes it seem as if the normal CO2 level was almost constant. This cannot be further from the truth.

Aim at surviving the consequences, or it will be too late to organise anything.

Re:Same old same old.

[SuperBanana]

The hockey stick graph [wikimedia.org] is a lie because it makes it seem as if the normal CO2 level was almost constant. This cannot be further from the truth.

Both graphs show exactly the same thing- that we're in an upswing with CO2 levels, but that the upswing this time is significantly higher than every other cycle, going back half a million years. Also, notice something funny about the last few thousand years temperature-wise? Namely that the pattern is also broken there?

You're an utter moron, as is whoever modded you up. Time to start metamoderating again.

Re:His story is typical.

[Dreadneck]

The 'Us vs. Them' mentality evident in the climate change debate is a shining example of the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy.

Personally, I'm glad that people like Dyson are around. Good science demands skepticism. It keeps the discipline honest. Personal vilification of one's critics, rather than satisfying their doubts with solid evidence and sound reasoning, is bad science.

Yet we are not a signficant

[Shivetya]

contributor of CO2 in our atmosphere, so what little we do to reduce it has no true effect on the condition. Why waste money on such an endeavor when there are far better things to spend it on (like clean water)

North Central United States

[codepunk]

I would have to agree with the man, consider this fact. The area in which I currently live was just 10,000 years ago covered by a glacier nearly a mile in thickness. Now we
certainly where not burning fossil fuels 10k years ago, yet somehow global warming caused the glaciers to recede and melt. Yes I do believe in global warning it has been going on for over 10k years, I do not
however believe that man is the ultimate and or major cause.

Re:North Central United States

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I would have to agree with the man, consider this fact. The area in which I currently live was just 10,000 years ago covered by a glacier nearly a mile in thickness. Now we certainly where[sic] not burning fossil fuels 10k years ago, yet somehow global warming caused the glaciers to recede and melt. Yes I do believe in global warning it has been going on for over 10k years, I do not however believe that man is the ultimate and or major cause.

Consider this fact. 10,000 years ago people were murdered. Now we certainly were not firing guns 10k years ago, yet somehow bladed weapons caused people to die. Yes I do believe in murder has been going on for over 10k years, I do not, however, believe that guns are a main tool used to commit murder.

Hopefully my analogy has demonstrated to you that you've provided no support whatsoever for the theory that current global warming trends are not caused by mankind in general or greenhouse gas emissions in particular, as the scientific models with the best experimental evidence to date seem to indicate. If you'd like to present alternate theories that show how the unprecedented rate of change fits within a different model where greenhouse gasses from human activity is not a major factor, and then perform experiments and make falsifiable predictions until your theory has more evidentiary support, please do, it will be a boon to all of mankind. If you'd care to cite peer reviewed scientific models and experiments of others that you think already show this, by all means enlighten me. As a scientist and a rational person, I form my beliefs based upon the results of the scientific method and the results all seem to be showing the same thing, to one degree or another. I see a lot of unscientific PR pieces that disagree, but no real science. Sadly, it seems PR works as well as anything to form opinions, which is why people persist in such unscientific beliefs and deny manmade global warming or the evolution of man or the spherical earth theories; which science has pretty well established as facts at this point.

Complexity as an attempt to hide lies.

[dfenstrate]

He's not a climatologist. He has never done research on global warming. He has absolutely no data of his own. He is not an expert in this field. There is no reason, whatsoever, to listen to his opinions.

You might as well have your car mechanic perform surgery on you. After all, he's a professional, right? Therefore he must be qualified!

If your car mechanic tells you that you need to pay $790 to replace your gizrogyronmeter before you car implodes- when you brought the car in for an oil change- you don't have to be a mechanic to figure out you're being bullshitted and he probably has something else besides your best interests in mind.

If your surgeon is trying to sell you a $32,000 surgery on your feet because of hyspotoxiomosis of the anterior legamoid deltamint, and you came in for a mole removal, you don't have to be a PHD to see he just wants to fund his next vacation.

The fact is that AGW advocates demand 'solutions' involving control and expenditures that are entirely out of whack with their established credibility and perceived integrity.

Claiming "you can't understand it, it's too complex" in the face of the legitimate questions about the intent, integrity, and aims of Global Warming's high priests and salesmen is an evasion of the issue.

To put this article in a more local perspective...

[macraig]

... if Dyson were commenting regularly at Slashdot, sans his well-known reputation, he would be routinely modded down as Troll.

Being an alleged Troll is sometimes a good thing.

Freeman Dyson is not a climatologist

[quixote9]

He's a physicist. All he's done is show that non-specialists aren't necessarily as good as specialists at understanding the evidence.

I'm a biologist, and a good one if I do say so myself. I'm also convinced that faster than light travel (and the necessary new physics) is just waiting to be discovered. I'm sure the physics community will be immediately rethinking all their principles now.

conflicts of interest

[moderatorrater]

Agreed, global warming could be happening anyway, but what's most profitable for those involved? People will scream until their faces turn blue that anybody who doubts global warming is doing it for money (as the OP did), but when it's pointed out that all the money right now is to be gained by verifying climate change they take it in stride. Conflicts of interest are conflicts of interest, and when it come to climate change, the reports I've seen accuse the oil companies and those with vested interests of giving hundreds of millions of dollars whereas those trying to prove climate change are spending roughly 10x that amount according to this report.

This issue is too heated for good, solid science to come out of it. The issue's too politicized for confidence and the science too uncertain to know what's going to happen anyway. Without being able to verify everything myself, I feel that doubt and skepticism are the only rational reactions to be had.

Re:Man-made global warming is a hoax?

[thesupraman]

No, his facts are documented and people can go and investigate them and form their own opinions.

You on the other hand offer no facts and unfounded accusations.

You present yourself as an idiot, whereas he presents himself as well informed. Hmmm.

Re:This has all happened before

[Cyberax]

"However, a climate scientists doesn't need to be a stupid idiot in order to be wrong. Much of what we were taught in school concerning fundamentals of physics were "wrong" (e.g. 4 phases of matter; 3 spatial dimensions + 1 temporal dimension; proton is the smallest fundamental particle, etc)."

And guess what, they taught you RIGHT. Because all these facts are quite true, they just do not hold at some extreme conditions. In other words, all our theories are incomplete.

But good theories have predictive power within their domain. This is quite true about 3 stages of matter in 'common' life, for example.

"I personally don't care if it's true or not. If you really believe it, then there are solutions to solving it that don't require control of others. Let's go nuclear. Let's seed the oceans with iron (which also has the added side effect of increasing fish populations). Let's put up the solar shades. Let's move the earth to a wider orbit. Let's sequester the CO2 on Mars."

Let's ask a wood fairy to fix all that's wrong...

Look at your graph more closely

[Rumata]

Look at the graphs, look at historical records in the rocks. Ask yourselves, did we cause global warming or are we merely part of it ? I think the graphs speak for themselves.

Yes it does speak for it self, possibly not in the way you think, though. The large scale graph shows that from -400000 to 0 carbon dioxide concentrations varied between ~190ppmv and ~300ppmv; changes occurred relatively slowly, the fastest up-ticks are on timescales of 1k-10k years (hard to be precise from this scale).
The new peak on the far right of this graph is unique in two ways:
-The absolute level is about 25% higher than any of the 4 previous peaks and about 40% higher than the average of the graph.
-The rate of change is completely unprecedented, about 90ppmv/200years, i.e. the vertical line inside the ellipse.

I am no expert in the matter, and I know that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. However, just judging from your graph, I see a unique feature in the data, nicely aliened with a drastic population increase of a certain two-legged critter (obviously not shown here) and a change of habits of said critter (massive burning of coal/oil).
So, unless you have a compelling alternate explanation I'll stick with man-made increase of CO2 levels.

Cheers,
Michael

Invoking the Al Gore Rule on climate science

[snowwrestler]

The Al Gore Rule, which I have formulated over the course of years of participating in discussions about global warming, is this:

The degree of a person's fixation on Al Gore is inversely proportional to their expertise in climate science.

Note that this works equally well for either side in the debate.

If you wish to disprove global warming, you do not need to disprove Al Gore's expertise. You need to prove that the data and theory of thousands of highly trained and experienced scientists around the world is incorrect. Best of luck.