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

Re:We need opposition with DATA

[artor3]

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!

Re:There is money and publicity

[kholburn]

There's big money, very big money and huge astroturfing campaigns in denying global warming too.

Re:There is money and publicity

[PopeRatzo]

Don't try to make sense, DrMorbius. The comments here demonstrate that the energy industry has gotten full value for the money they have spent on pro-fossil fuel propaganda.

Next time... do the math

[denzacar]

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.

I guess you were to busy driving your gas guzzling SUV, getting 2 miles per gallon, while eating big greasy cheeseburgers in those old-fashioned styrofoam containers and chucking those containers through the window of your car - to actually do some number crunching there.
30% out of 10 is 3 - yes... BUT...

Those 3 people are also gonna have their carbon emissions scaled down - so take 30% off of them too. That would be 0.9 - almost an entire person.
So, starting with 10, you end up with 13 people - who are creating as much of CO2 as 9 people did before. More people, less pollution.

Or don't have those 3 new ones cut their emissions. You still get 13 people tomorrow producing as much as 10 do today.
So, with those 10 reducing their emissions by 30%, and those extra 3 not reducing at all - you get a 7.7% reduction per capita.
Again - more people, less pollution.

Or let me illustrate it like this.

The ship is sinking in the middle of the ocean and there are not enough lifeboats.
Help is on the way, but it won't get there before crew and passengers get a chance to see just how good swimmers they are.

Each lifeboat seats 10 "regular" humans - weighing about 80 kg.
As a bunch of fat bastards from first class show up on the deck, captain decides to put a temporary moratorium on the people's rights and the democracy - takes out a gun and proclaims himself the sole authority on the seating arrangements in the life boats.

So, he has someone bring a scale to the deck and starts weighing passengers.
If you are 30% lighter than the "regular" 80-kilo human - you get an instant ticket on the life boat.

So, he fills the boat with 10 people weighing 56 kilos or less (80 kg - 30%) - and he still has weight capacity left for 4 more skinny people.
Someone will have to sit in someone else's lap - but hey... They only weigh about 56 kilos or less.
Plus... they have about 16 kilos left - captain adds 4 more babies to the people in the life boat and sends them on their way.

So... While he could have let 5 rich fat fucks take the boat, or have 10 average (spending) people rowing off to safety - with a little creative rationing the brave but politically incorrect captain got 14 people and 4 babies in that same boat.
He could have also said "Fuck the babies" and loaded the boat with 10 "light" and 3 regular people.
But saving babies from drowning illustrates the point kinda better.

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.

You can see that it WOULD NOT be impossible.
Plus - needs of the people are not increasing EQUALLY.
A village somewhere in Africa that needs a wind or solar powered water pump DOES NOT equal one lard-ass in the developed world who spends dozen such pumps on lattes each year.

By cutting down on your own emissions and implementing clean energy sources on the large scale - YOU get to keep nearly all of your current comforts, plus you let some developing countries reach a higher level of civilization in the process.
And not only do you get to live a cleaner and healthier life with less chance for getting cancer and with a "better" body due to actually walking a bit here and there - by raising standards of those poor people in the "Third World" you reduce the chances that in the future they will feel the urge to chuck a plane or two into some buildings near your home.
Or a carcass crawling with Ebola into your local water supply.