Slashdot Mirror
Freeman Dyson Talks Interstellar Travel, Climate Change, and More (theregister.co.uk)
New submitter Tulsa_Time writes with this interview in The Register with Freeman Dyson. They cover a wide range of topics including climate change to which Dyson says Obama has picked the "wrong side". The Reg reports: "The life of physicist Freeman Dyson spans advising bomber command in World War II, working at Princeton University in the States as a contemporary of Einstein, and providing advice to the US government on a wide range of scientific and technical issues. He is a rare public intellectual who writes prolifically for a wide audience. He has also campaigned against nuclear weapons proliferation. At America's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Dyson was looking at the climate system before it became a hot political issue, over 25 years ago. He provides a robust foreword to a report written by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cofounder Indur Goklany on CO2 – a report published [PDF] by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)."
He also said that climate models were a joke, and are getting worse and are deviating more and more from what is actually happening. But he is only one of the worlds most distinguished physicists. I trust Al Gore more. His carbon trading system will save the planet!
Always interesting to hear Freeman Dyson, but can't help thinking The Register asked for an interview just for the climate quotes - both the interviewer and the current editor are climate change deniers, and The Reg is shamelessly used to push these views.
Why should one be ashamed of publicizing his own sincerely-held views?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
It's easy to not worry about climate change when you'll probably be dead in a few years anyway.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
After doing a lot of reading about this man, I have come to this conclusion about his views: Basically he has said "you're {climate scientists} all wrong because I don't like your models and if you try to ask me about specific technical flaws in those models I will defer to my status as a physicist and not a climatologist" So which is it? Are the models flawed, and if so, how? OR are you just a contrarian old codger whose views on climate science are about as reliable as my plumber's opinions on thermonuclear generators? Here is an interesting exchange
I have respect for Freeman Dyson and would not call him a climate science denier but a "lukewarmer". He admits that increased CO2 will have effects but doesn't think they will be so bad that it won't be a major disruption to our civilization. I think he is wrong in that judgement and wish he'd take the time for some deep talk with actual climatologists but he may be to set in his ways for that to have an effect.
and the interview is with The Register, a website also well known for it's AGW denial...
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Consider that Dyson, an AGW denialist ...
Dyson is NOT a denialist. He accepts that climate change is happening and that it is caused by humans. But he also feels that humanity has much bigger problems, and AGW is getting far more attention than it deserves ... and he is right. If we focus on population control, 3rd world poverty, eradicating malaria, and raising literacy rates, then AGW will be a much easier problem to deal with in the future. My wife got a $10k taxpayer subsidy on her Tesla. That could have paid for a thousand anti-malaria bed nets. That is misplaced priorities.
He is wrong to challenge it.
You sound like a religious nut job. Your religion is what scientists tell you to believe.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
You forgot to call him an anti-science shill for the oil companies.
I agree that fusion is unlikely to solve any of our problems in the near future, but what I've read about thorium reactors is very promising.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
No, this guy: http://science.slashdot.org/st...
Science is never settled.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Which is pretty interesting itself, is filter effect on the current slashdot community. It's amazing how many people who are always flocking to anything AGW related just stayed away. Have to wonder if being denied their favorite weapons (anti-science etc etc) just soured them on the fight.
Yes, he did invent the vacuum cleaner. You know, the one that makes that WHOOSHING noise.
Even some of the most fervent Obama supporters don't claim he is *always* on the right side of history. Most believe he is on the right side of history *most of the time* and wrong on a few things, where the few things is different depending on the person. For example there are quite a few Obama supporters that strongly disagree with his stance on warrant-less surveillance/NSA evesdropping, etc.
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
An utter climate denier, Freeman Dyson follows the footsteps of many Nobel Laureates gone bonkers, such as the illustrious Kary Mulis (invented PCR, denies HIV-AIDS causality), Francis Crick (discovered the DNA helix, denies HIV-AIDS causality, the hole in the ozone layer, AGW), Ivar Giaever (worked on superconductivity, denies AGW). Given their age, maybe they're getting senile?
Obama is always on the right side of history
Obama signed an extension of the PATRIOT act within two years of taking office. Pull your head out of your ass.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
James Hansen:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
JASONs and National Academy of Sciences, 1979:
In 1979 the subject was addressed by the JASON Committee, the reclusive group of scientists with high-level security clearances who gather annually to advise the U.S. government; its members have included some of the most brilliant scientists of our era.
The JASON scientists predicted that atmospheric carbon dioxide might double by 2035, resulting in mean global temperature increases of 2 to 3 degrees Celsius and polar warming of as much as 10 to 12 degrees. This report reached the Carter White House, where science adviser Frank Press asked the National Academy of Sciences for a second opinion. An academy committee, headed by MIT meteorologist Jule Charney, affirmed the JASON conclusion: "If carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we] find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/31/AR2007013101808.html
And then there is of course the big one, Roger Revelle writing in a report to Lyndon Johnson on ecological problems. 1965.
http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2015/02/president-johnson-carbon-climate-warning
In 1979 and 1965 there was not significant and reliable data firmly indicating global warming (we now know that greenhouse forcing was compensated by increased pollution in N hemisphere); the predictions were made entirely from basic physics and thermodynamics, and their underlying principles still stand today. The fundamental predictions: increased infrared emissivity from additional carbon dioxide, warming surface and troposphere, cooling stratosphere, global warming, and relatively higher in polar regions, are all specific markers of increased global warming from increased greenhouse forcing (vs aerosols and increases in solar forcing), and subsequent major observational programs showed them to be true.
My wife got a $10k taxpayer subsidy on her Tesla. That could have paid for a thousand anti-malaria bed nets. That is misplaced priorities.
I suppose it could have, but so could $10k spent on anything else, and the U.S. government spends a lot of $10ks on much less worthy priorities.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
While your argument appears to have merit, I believe the counter-argument is that we are so close to the tipping point that any delay in drastically reducing carbon emissions would have disastrous effects. Now that there's agreement that climate change is actually a thing, and there's agreement that a great majority of it is caused by man, the questions become: Exactly how big of a problem is it? How quickly do we need to act? How much resources do we need to put into this problem? etc.. While you seem to have made up your mind about these last questions, I think they are still open, and that the answers we do have seem to be pointing in the opposite direction as you would like.
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
What you're saying is that his conclusions are politically incorrect and don't agree with what you feel compelled to believe, for whatever reasons.
I am not qualified to say who's right and who's wrong here. But I keep an open mind and listen to reasoned argument. The extremes (flat out deniers on one side and cataclysm mongers on the other) do neither.
Don't you get it?
Freeman Dyson
Freeman Dyson
Freemason!
The denialists want to claim him as one of them, but if you read what he actually says (and not what other people rephrase what he says), he's not; he's a skeptic, all right, but not a denier, or, at least, he doesn't parrot the deniers' (mostly stupid) talking points. His arguments are more complicated than that.
He does, however, think that climate models are not reliable. When you dig down into why, you see that he admits taht he hasn't actually studied them, he's just distrustful of numerical models in general.
A large part of his argument, however, is that global warming just isn't a problem, and if it is, it's one we can solve. (In the very short interview referenced, for example, he says that we should look at ways of increasing snowfall in Antarctica as a solution.)
I think, unfortunately, that there is a complete contradiction here. You can't solve a problem if you don't have a model that tells you the effect of your prposed actions. So-- if you don't believe the models, then you can't model what the effect of your solution is. Contrawise, if you are asserting that you can solve the problem (by, for example, increasing snowfall in Antarctica), this means that you think that you can model the problem, and be confident that your solution the effect of solving the problem. So: you can assert that you don't believe the models, or you can assert that we can solve the problem, but you can't logically assert both.
What you're saying is that his conclusions are politically incorrect and don't agree with what you feel compelled to believe, for whatever reasons.
The AC said no such thing. He said he doesn't put much weight into what a non-climate scientist says about climate science when actual climatologists say differently.
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
Who needs fish if corn has better yield. Those stupid oceans are not acidic enough. It is like touting fluorocarbons and insisting that removal hurts poor people because refrigeration becomes marginally more expensive, and never mind the skin cancer. Maybe he really needs his own sphere by now.
Consider that Dyson, an AGW denialist ...
Dyson is NOT a denialist. He accepts that climate change is happening and that it is caused by humans. But he also feels that humanity has much bigger problems, and AGW is getting far more attention than it deserves ... and he is right. If we focus on population control, 3rd world poverty, eradicating malaria, and raising literacy rates, then AGW will be a much easier problem to deal with in the future. My wife got a $10k taxpayer subsidy on her Tesla. That could have paid for a thousand anti-malaria bed nets. That is misplaced priorities.
Not if the tesla drives energy innovation that helps deal with AGW.
Considering that the greatest negative impacts of climate change tend to occur in low-income parts of the world, no, this isn't misplaced priorities at all. Furthermore, aggressive climate change mitigation only costs a small fraction of GDP (recent estimates put it at under 2%), so there is no reason whatsoever to believe that aggressive action to halt climate change would have any negative impact on other ways of improving quality of life around the world.
"Dyson contends that since carbon dioxide is good for plants, a warmer planet could be a very good thing. And if CO2 does get to be a problem, Dyson believes we can just do some genetic engineering to create a new species of super-tree that can suck up the excess." ref
...in which distinguished elderly physicist becomes convinced that the entirety of a "lesser" field is wrong and its practitioners fools. See Penrose, Roger.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
You realize his statement was sarcasm, right?
Didn't read the article, did you?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Uh, no
I don't really care, who you trust. But if you want to convince and force me to change my ways, the burden of proof is on you, not on "denialists".
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
When the Cold War was winding down, the National (Weapons) Labs were looking for something to do to justify their budget -- they branched out into alternative energy, environmental research, etc. Freeman Dyson was doing climate research before you were even born.
The truth remains — there have not been many climate-related predictions published, that came true in due time. In fact, I can't find even a single one such prediction
Actually, an interesting question. The oldest "scientific consensus" I can find that gives a number that can be used as a prediction is the 1979 National Academy of Sciences report. This predicted that the climate sensitivity was between 1.5 and 4.5C per doubling: that is, 3 plus or minus 1.5. Citation: Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1979. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/121... (you can go back earlier than this, but this is the first one where a panel of scientists came together to evaluate all the models available at the time, and not just a single team making a model.)
That's 36 years ago, so it's long enough to compare prediction to reality. In 1979, carbon dioxide (annual average) was 336.8 ppm; in 2014 concentration was 398.6 ppm. citation: http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/... That's an increase of 118%, log(2) of that is 0.243. So given that CO2 increase, the predicted temperature rise between 1979 and 2014, if the NAS value was correct, is 0.81 plus or minus 0.4.
Actual temperature rise, according to the GISS temp, is 0.17 above datum in 1979, 0.75 above datum in 2014, for a temperature rise of 0.58C. citation: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...
The prediction of 0.81 plus or minus 0.4 is within the error bars of the actual measurement, 0.58. So I will rate this as a correct prediction.
Who do you think are climatologist?
They are all Geologists, statisticians, economists, mathematicians, psychologists, physicists, etc...
So you are saying Dyson is not as capable at basic understanding of the "high school grade SETTLED science" that is climate science?
You simple minded ideologists cant have your cake and eat it too. Its either simple grade school science or its not. Its either settled or its not.
Your argumenting from emotion and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
That wasn't her subsidy and she couldn't use the subsidy to buy those bed nets.
What the AC failed to do, though, was explain why a climate scientist is more qualified to talk about relative scales of problems than anybody else is. Climate scientists are better at what they do than anyone else, but that doesn't mean they're good public policy makers, sociologists, economists... all of whom will need to be involved in determining what public policy should be.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
You would be wrong.
Unless you listen to mainstream media alarmism and a few of the extremists on that side, even the IPCC barely points to barely more than half "could" be man made and they have absolutely no idea if its bad or not.
The tipping point argument holds no water and has no evidence.
But the questions you mention are valid ones, I just think you believe they are answered when they are not.
Reminds me of Al Gore's speech back in 2007, when he was accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo:
Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.
OK. That quote gives a prediction of 22 years. The statement "could happen in as little as" isn't any sort of an actual prediction, but you could say that it adds that the error bars in that number includes 7 years. So, the prediction is 22 years, plus or minus 15. It would be worth finding the actual references, not the paraphrases, but that prediction as quoted is that the north polar ice cap "could be" gone by 2029. We have a long time to wait before seeing if this happens.
Al Gore's work in climate change was inspired by his Harvard professor Roger Revelle... In a July 14, 1988, letter to Congressman Jim Bates, [Revelle] wrote that: "Most scientists familiar with the subject are not yet willing to bet that the climate this year is the result of 'greenhouse warming.' As you very well know, climate is highly variable from year to year, and the causes of these variations are not at all well understood. My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways."
So, he said in 1988 that we needed to wait until 1998 or 2008 before we are convinced that greenhouse warming is going to be important. That's about when the data on the greenhouse warming started being pretty compelling, so I'd say: quite accurate.
Before his death in July 1991 Dr. Revelle said in a paper, "the scientific baseis for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time."
"at this time" meaning 1991. And, in fact, we didn't take any drastic action in 1991.
My wife got a $10k taxpayer subsidy on her Tesla. That could have paid for a thousand anti-malaria bed nets. That is misplaced priorities.
I suppose it could have, but so could $10k spent on anything else, and the U.S. government spends a lot of $10ks on much less worthy priorities.
Anyone that can afford a Tesla doesn't need $10K from the taxpayers. And just because they do other stupid things with our money doesn't make this any better. Take the money given to 3 rich folks for their Tesla's and buy some poor person a LEAF. At least then I'll feel like my money is doing some good.
"Sorry, but even a Narrow Spectrum Physicist understands argumentum ad venicundium, argument by incompetent authority!"
And you just used argumentum ad monsantium, which is that the other guy is shilling for $EVIL_CORPORATION.
But to be fair, the article leaves it very unclear what Dyson's actual position on climate is. His position seems to be that although there is some decent evidence for warming (melting of long-term ice) the climate models suck, which is borne out by the total inability of the models to predict long-term weather changes - you know, the very definition of climate.
Whether one agrees or not with DeSmogBlog as a Church of Warminetics worship site, the Register's claim that the blog is run by A CONVICTED CRIMINAL is pretty thin when you discover that the law the blogger had broken was UIGEA, which not only has nothing to do with the climate controversy but is one of those nonsense edicts that Americans, be they liberal or conservative, are proud to find themselves on the wrong side of.
Now its 90%? Or your just being conservative because you don't believe the 97% version of propaganda?
WHAT is settled is the question? Do you know whats settled? Please tell me EXACTLY what is settled. :)
Who do you think are climatologist?
They are all Geologists, statisticians, economists, mathematicians, psychologists, physicists, etc...
So you are saying Dyson is not as capable at basic understanding of the "high school grade SETTLED science" that is climate science?
You simple minded ideologists cant have your cake and eat it too. Its either simple grade school science or its not. Its either settled or its not.
Your argumenting from emotion and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
I never said this was "high school grade SETTLED science", you did. So arguing that point is, well, pointless. Maybe you think everyone who posts something you disagree with is the same person and we all think with one big hive mind, but I assure you that is not the case. Secondly, I never claimed Dyson was incapable of anything. What I did was correct chipschap's mischaracterization of AC's post. You know, sort of how you are trying to mischaractarize my post by reading what you want to read and not what I wrote. Seems like you are the one arguing from emotion, friend.
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
Well from what I keep hearing the argument is that if we don't focus on climate change now it will be too late to try in the future. While the stuff he stated is true and those are important problems none will lead to the amount of death and extinction as climate change.
Yes it's true that climate models do have some issues (as any science does), and are constantly refined. It's also true that, from a scientific perspective, the earth will be quite habitable even under the most dire predictions.
This is NOT where the major problems associated with global warming come from. It's the changing of natural resources everyone is used to. It could require massive engineering projects or moving tens of millions of people and abandon whole cities near sea level. It could cause massive heat waves that could kill tens of thousands like what is starting to happen in India. It could require whole regions to abandon the familiar agriculture practices, and in some areas leave no alternative production. It could destabilize whole regions of the world and cause massive wars killing millions - far worse than any direct effect.
This is the real danger of global warming, not simply a few degrees of temperature rise on an otherwise bearable average value.
He did say "Over 90%".
What the AC failed to do, though, was explain why a climate scientist is more qualified to talk about relative scales of problems than anybody else is. Climate scientists are better at what they do than anyone else, but that doesn't mean they're good public policy makers, sociologists, economists... all of whom will need to be involved in determining what public policy should be.
Yes. Experts typically think that their area of expertise is more important than other areas. I've seen it in others; I've seen it in myself.
sr
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
He could be wrong. If we act and he was wrong we've spent some money. If we don't act and he was right we could be screwed.
"He also said that climate models were a joke, and are getting worse and are deviating more and more from what is actually happening. But he is only one of the worlds most distinguished physicists. I trust Al Gore more. His carbon trading system will save the planet!" ref
"More Than 400 U.S. Cities May Be 'Past The Point Of No Return' With Sea Level Threats: But there are still cities that could be saved by reducing carbon emissions..
Who is this "we"?
You see, if he is right none of us alive today will be around when its screwed.
But more interestingly, didn't some Australian guy discover flaws in the model for warming and determin that the forcing by CO2 is actually a quarter or less of what is used in current models. I guess it will take a few weeks to be verified or something.
Uh, you do understand that the statement "I trust Al Gore more" was sarcasm right?
How many fucking whoosh's are we gonna get out of this one?
Do you have ESP?
Confusing weather with climate. Denier spotted!
Take the money given to 3 rich folks for their Tesla's and buy some poor person a LEAF. At least then I'll feel like my money is doing some good.
The goal is to encourage the replacement of gasoline cars with electric cars, not to give people free cars. The way you would do it, would be about only one third as effective in achieving the policy goal. Also, according to the Wikipedia article on the incentives. The LEAF actually qualifies for a large federal subsidy than the Tesla Model S, thus getting both an absolutely larger subsidy and a subsidy that covers a larger percentage of the cost.
And just because they do other stupid things with our money doesn't make this any better.
No, the actual goals of reducing dependency on foreign oil, reducing pollution from gasoline and diesel powered vehicles, and helping to jump start a new and innovative industry make it better. The point is that if you want to bellyache and complain, you should aim for the actually bad policies rather than the relatively good ones. If the U.S. paid for one less aircraft carrier, for instance, you could probably buy everyone in the world their very own malaria net, ship it to them gift-wrapped, and have cash left over.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
You don't get more EVs on the road if you give money to Tesla buyers who are going to buy anyhow. That is a bad policy. So I stand by my point, which also includes the fact that I don't want my money paying for rich people's transportation at all, if you are going to pay for someone's transportation I would much rather it be a low income person who needs help.
Another talking point.
The worst case scenario fallacy.
Yes, Dr David Evans.
But unfortunately, there wont be any verifying by the alarmist side. They do not want to be told they where wrong.
They will ignore it like they do all evidence or observations that dont fit the agenda.
All of your assertions are conjecture.
If only you had some evidence, or that observations could support your claims.
How will a thousand anti-malaria bed nets make AGW a much easier problem to deal with? (Serious question)
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Well from what I keep hearing the argument is that if we don't focus on climate change now it will be too late to try in the future.
Funny, that's not in the actual research. What's actually being claimed is that if we don't want to experience any serious consequences of global warming, we need to keep temperature increase from 1850 below 2 C. I think that's exaggerated.
While the stuff he stated is true and those are important problems none will lead to the amount of death and extinction as climate change.
Except that high level of death and extinction is not predicted by actual research or modeling either. It's also worth noting here that habitat destruction, invasive species, and overharvesting are the primary causes of species extinction and they will remain so even in the face of high global warming.
You can't contribute to this discussion, if you aren't paying attention.
More than a Nike superstore.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Seeing as the barriers to tackling AGW are not material but political, it can be tackled at the same time as the other things you mentioned. Simply saying "he is right" without offering any actual evidence beyond the shallowest of anecdotes does not a good argument make.
Dr. David Evans who gained his PhD in electrical engineering? That guy? I guess if he's the best you've got, you're going to go with his argument... You seem to have a fantastic misunderstanding of the scientific method and community if you think overturning great swathes of scientific research is something scientists don't want. Really. It's bordering on pathetic.
I would think population control and eradicating malaria are opposing goals.
you should discount it, according to anything measurable that is not going to happen tomorrow or day after tomorrow. or maybe you don't discount the possibility of batman being a documentary either - but that would make you a loonie.
the butterfly is a favorite among simplicists who want to sound intelligent. the literal butterfly effect does not happen, a butterfly flying in china does NOT cause storms across the globe. a brain parasite in the head of a sub commander MIGHT cause a nuclear war though.. but that's not really what is commonly described as the butterfly effect.
it's bullshit.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Keep in mind that 2 degrees C is a global average; the warming effect is greater at the poles. Alaska (and the Arctic, generally) is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world. Fairbanks has seen a 50% increase in frost-free days since 1900, and glacial ice is melting at a mind-blowing rate.
The catastrophic type stuff is (hopefully) unlikely, but any of the large ice sheets melting would be seriously unpleasant and hard to stop. Similarly, most of the Arctic is underlain by permafrost, which will likely add gigatonnes of CO2/CH4 to the atmosphere if and when it melts. If one is willing to discount any ongoing warming in the Arctic, then 2 degrees C is probably survivable for most of humanity, assuming nothing else goes wrong. The concern is about reaching a "tipping point" where more powerful natural forces take over. And it's not like global oil consumption is declining.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
The settled, high school science part is that CO2 causes warming (3.7W/m^2 per doubling). It's either that or almost all physics is wrong. The nearly-as-certain part is that water vapor provides a strong positive feedback loop. It holds true in both simple and complex models, and attempts to disprove that have failed. Frankly the alternate hypotheses never made sense; it's just wishful thinking to think that the climate is self-regulating. Beyond that things get complicated. The Earth will get warmer, and there are some possible scenarios that we'd really rather avoid, but the specifics are not high school science.
I hate to be the one to point it out, but if you're ignorant of which part of climate science is at the secondary education level, it seems your education is deficient. Any undergraduate text on Atmospheric Science would answer these questions. Also do note that Dyson is only arguing against the models' predictive power, not the underlying principles.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
But to be fair, the article leaves it very unclear what Dyson's actual position on climate is. His position seems to be that although there is some decent evidence for warming (melting of long-term ice) the climate models suck, which is borne out by the total inability of the models to predict long-term weather changes - you know, the very definition of climate.
The models have been shown to be pretty good at predicting long-term weather changes, if by long-term you mean decade scale. The results are right on predictions, so far; while models that don't include anthropogenic global warming have been consistently wrong. The models don't predict short term weather, but then, they're not supposed to.
I see the deniers have mod points today
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
more importantly, his conclusions are scientifically incorrect.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
"settled" is an odd word. I'm not sure what it means. If new data comes in that contradicts the theories we have now, the science will change. This is the way science works: science is "settled" until it is overturned by data, or by better understanding of the old data.
What is "settled" about climate is that the null hypothesis-- that human-produced carbon dioxide doesn't produce warming-- has been rather convincingly rejected by data.
If you want to overturn the current consensus, you need to come up with a mechanism by which carbon dioxide won't produce warming... and show that it fits the data (and there is a lot of data. Those curves you see are only the tiniest bit of it). A lot of people have been looking for that theory for a very long time, and so far have been unable to come up with any plausible mechanisms.
Honestly, I think y'all are taking Dyson's stance way out of context. What I think his comments show is that he's optimistic about human ingenuity and invention. Several thousand years ago, building an object like one of the pyramids in Egypt took tens of thousands of humans decades to accomplish. Today, it could be completed in one hundredth the time with one hundredth the manpower. Even looking back 100 years, you're talking factors of ten in increased production, efficiency, and man-hour effectiveness.
Also, people look at a point in time prognosticated 100-200 years in the future with climate change and compare it to today and calculate the damages from change, without dividing those damages and change into the number of years between the two points. So, a big scary figure of $20Trillion in 100 years, turns into $200bn/year...and is not nearly as scary anymore. Not an instant apocalypse, but a manageable problem.
My wife got a $10k taxpayer subsidy on her Tesla. That could have paid for a thousand anti-malaria bed nets. That is misplaced priorities.
Sorry, someone has to bring this point up: How many malaria bed nets would the whole Tesla have paid for, minus the cost of a bus pass?
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Science is never settled.
Rubbish. The laws of motion are settled for anything humans are currently capable of creating or even observing.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Since when is "could" an assertion? If I had said "will" or "does" maybe you would have a point.
Dyson has succeeded in destroying his reputation as a serious and credible observer and commentator of society and his times by propagating pseudo-science around climate change. His actual scientific achievements are of course spared.
Freeman Dyson is not a climate scientist. He's a scientist who dabbles in theorizing about the climate because he wants to. He is trading on his name and reputation, to the detriment of both. It doesn't matter how smart you are or how accomplished you are in other areas; if it's not your specific area of expertise, then you're in over your head.\
If you want to see Dyson's theorizing on climate systematically and thoroughly destroyed - (amongst other things he gets caught in just plain old logical fallacies) by actual climatologists, here's what that looks like:
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
http://initforthegold.blogspot...
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
Dyson doesn't believe that humans are contributing to atmospheric CO2 or that the Earth is warming. These are not things that can be reasonably denied. - http://www.independent.co.uk/e...
Climate change isn't just about an increase of just 2 degrees its also about shifting and changing of the actual climates any species unable to migrate or handle the changes which will be drastic in some places will not survive. Not to mention predators moving into new territories and imbalancing the local food chain.
It could also increase crop productions, growing seasons, greening of the earth and eventual just start getting cold again.
So tell me why we should fear this slight increase in temperature again, when there is no evidence it is a problem?
They always do!
For some strange reason, they always seem to have time on their hands
Wonder who is paying their salaries while they flag the truth?
Is it Koch?
AGW is getting far more attention than it deserves ... and he is right.
That is highly debatable. Both that AGW is getting enough attention, and whether it is more or less serious than other issues.
I personally don't see it getting nearly enough attention. Politicians give it lip service, but no country on Earth has passed aggressive climate legislation. About the only organization that is giving it a lot of attention and money, is the propaganda machine trying to cause doubt and denial about climate change! Exxon, Shell, Koch Brothers, etc.. have all spent a large amount of money funding "skeptic" groups and "think tanks" to promote confusion and doubt on the subject. They will go down in history as being on the wrong side, just like the Tobacco companies were.
As for how serious it is... I am not sure how anyone can seriously argue that it isn't the largest issue we face, unless that person does not believe the predictions from IPCC and other bodies. 90+% of the worlds population lives on the coast. Sea level rise alone will displace such a large amount of people, the cost is going to be enormous, even spread over 50 years.
The same can be said about oil companies' profits if the AGW is real. But any sceptic today is immediately suspected of being on Big Oil's payroll anyway. What's good for the gander, is good for a rooster.
In 2012 US Federal government budgeted $19.78 bln for climate change research and "clean energy". In 2014 the figure was already $21,408 bln (and it was even greater in 2013). The $1.5 bln would buy a lot of scientists — especially those, who already think AGW is a real concern and whose conscience would thus be a lot cheaper.
But that delta is insignificant compared to the rise in expenditures compared to prior years — in 1998, for example, the US has only spent about $8 bln, if I read the CBO-document correctly — and that was when AGW was believed to be a concern.
You are right, that interest in the subject will not "vanish overnight". But the expenditures will most certainly fall to before 1998-levels and that will mean a lot of unemployed "climate scientists" — at least a half of them. Any judge or politician with a conflict of interest of such magnitude, that wouldn't recuse himself, would be impeached — and for a good reason.
I do not doubt, that you share the concerns over the fabled "Military-Industrial Complex" influencing the government towards "perpetual war" so it can forever sell the armaments. Why can't you recognize the same thing in other walks of life?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
What make him think that his grandchildren will get to 50 years in the future? If I had children (obviously, not being malicious, I don't) I wouldn't bet on them reaching 50, let alone on the next generation reaching 50.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Sorry, I've never heard of a logical fallacy based on Monsanto.
Look him up on realclimate.org. Dyson is a denialist.
who "publishes" in denialist magazines
Who uses Denialist Sources. Give it up.
It's used a lot these days. So much more trendy a logical fallacy than those plain old Occam's Razor violations of old.
No need.
He already proved that
Yeah, but I like the classics!