Les Jones: Freeman Dyson, Global Warming Heretic

August 11, 2007

Environment > Freeman Dyson, Global Warming Heretic

From his HERETICAL THOUGHTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND SOCIETY:

My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.
There is no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer, but the warming is not global. I am not saying that the warming does not cause problems. Obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it better. I am saying that the problems are grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are more urgent and more important, such as poverty and infectious disease and public education and public health, and the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans, not to mention easy problems such as the timely construction of adequate dikes around the city of New Orleans.

[...]

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. Many of the basic processes of planetary ecology are poorly understood. They must be better understood before we can reach an accurate diagnosis of the present condition of our planet. When we are trying to take care of a planet, just as when we are taking care of a human patient, diseases must be diagnosed before they can be cured. We need to observe and measure what is going on in the biosphere, rather than relying on computer models.

Posted by lesjones | TrackBack

Comments

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

Ah, yes. Let's equivocate the word "global."

Anyhow, Old Freeman is one of those disturbing humanists who refuse to believe that humans can cause societal collapse via any other means that the simple ones like war. I mean, how else can his amazing humans create those wonderful spheres he posited.

This post uses the classic AGW attack that "models" are ineffective scientific tools for investigation because they do not comprise every variable. This is an ignorant position (not stupid, ignorant) in that it ignores how statistics work and that most science is done in laboratory situations using scale models. Else why would the mole exist? I imagine that Freeman Dyson wouldn't like the idea that his main forum of experimentation (as a theoretical physicist) -- the thought experiment -- would be dismissed out of hand. I wouldn't dismiss it. Einstein's thought experiment that explained motion at distance can never be discounted because the medium in which the experiment occurred was faulty. Interestingly, his experiments that he performed in his head are modeled in laboratories now. Shoot, what's wrong with models? It's a weak argument.

I just kidding.

Posted by: Metulj at August 12, 2007

Except that the modeling is "fixed", and it's rather well known to be.

Posted by: -B at August 12, 2007

Please link to peer-reviewed research that asserts that modeling is fixed. Is the Hadron Collider "fixed?" It models universal scale processes.

Posted by: Metulj at August 12, 2007

Jesus, everyone is losing their minds. Global warming is not a symptom that needs a diagnosis. Air pollution is the symptom, and the diagnosis is quite simple: emissions from combustion and farming. Global warming is just a reason to address the air pollution problem quickly, before it metastasizes.

The problems Dyson identifies as higher priorities would all be ameliorated by investments in more efficient engines and infrastructures or exacerbated by rapid climate shifts, should we ignore the risks. His position is remarkably unfounded and poorly thought out.

Posted by: persimmon at August 13, 2007

"Air pollution is the symptom, and the diagnosis is quite simple: emissions from combustion and farming. Global warming is just a reason to address the air pollution problem quickly, before it metastasizes."

I know that. But you have to understand that these folks all took high school earth science so they have everyone else beat.

But always remember: They're are just joking and would buy you a beer.

Posted by: Metulj at August 13, 2007

So, am I to take it, Metulj, that you think me a complete dolt about these matters? Your comment seems to say as much, at least that is the way I am infering it to be.

Let me be straight with you about this, and since we're at Les's place, I'll try to be polite. You have a body of evidence in front of you, and you are content with the outcome, I understand this. If that is what you want to believe, that is fine, as there isn't anything that I could or would even want to do about that.

Oh, hell, I'm tired of typing this already.

Here. Took less than 10 seconds to find this. This ONE piece.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=081307B

I'd like to settle this a different way, actually, but that has been outlawed since the early 19th century.

Posted by: -B at August 16, 2007

"Global warming is not a symptom that needs a diagnosis. Air pollution is the symptom, and the diagnosis is quite simple: emissions from combustion and farming. Global warming is just a reason to address the air pollution problem quickly, before it metastasizes."

Are you sure about this.

Lots of evidence would lead some to the opposite conclusion, and many who are learned about that subject.

Posted by: -B at August 16, 2007

Yes, I'm sure, but since you quote several sentences that cover a broad range of ideas, I have no idea whether you object to some or all of it, nor what "the opposite conclusion" might be.

Posted by: persimmon at August 17, 2007

Sorry, but I thought it was quite clear, and they are your words, afterall, and if you are suggesting that there isnt' clarity, I guess you need to take that up with management.

Posted by: -B at August 17, 2007

There are three sentences expressing three ideas. What is unclear is which idea(s) you are doubting and why.

Posted by: persimmon at August 17, 2007