The Global Warming Heretic

TellyKNeasuss said:
Here's another Dyson quote (from his wikipedia bio): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson

Nothing in there that any of us warmers would have a fundamental disagreement with (some might argue whether that fraction of a degree change in the tropics is really insignificant). However, it directly contradicts Gerlich's theory, which IIRC you supported.
Click to expand...
Ah...I encouraged Warmers to read Gerlich and still do. It's amusing. And they should read what Dyson's got to say, also. Might learn something.

The tendency as illustrated in this thread, and in the one on Gerlich you cite, to babble without careful study of the issue and the stands, is unscientific and foolish.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
My impression is that Dyson thinks that if the CO2-induced warming (which he believes is occurring) turns out to be harmful, we have, or will soon have, the ability to remove some of the CO2 from the atmosphere, perhaps by planting billions of trees that have been genetically engineered to absorb copious amounts of Carbon. I didn't get the impression that he believes that the excess CO2 will be removed naturally, though I didn't read the article carefully and I had never heard of this guy before today.
Click to expand...

That's my impression too. In fact it's quite clearly stated that he doesn't question the basic science (although he doesn't seem to understand some aspects as well as he assumes). I think what Dyson would regard as heresy is the idea that there are limits to what "we" can achieve with "our" technology. He takes no account of politics, economics, diplomacy and human nature ("screw you, Jack, I'm OK"). He's a child of the time before the physical enviroment started peeing on the technophile's bonfire. He rejects our reality and substitutes his own :).

To Freeman, the Dyson Sphere is the ultimate achievement of an advanced society, not the desperate recourse of a society that's blown it big-time.

(Glad to see someone's staying on-topic :).)
 
Well, I admit that I too think techno-remediation has a role, bit I know the problems pretty well and know that if we don't stop emissions, and develop some clean energy sources, we won't be able to do enough remediation to make a difference. But Dyson also thinks that existing plants will fill in the gap til we have a technofix. They can't. Or they already would have.
 
skeptigirl said:
Dyson is a successful physicist, but he's also predicted a lot of hogwash. There is no evidence we can do all the things with technology Dyson believes we can.

Of course, his fantasies sold a lot of books. It pays to be a fantastic optimist.
Click to expand...

When I was a teenager (the 60's) Dyson was a minor star; I first heard of him with the Dyson Sphere in an appendix to Larry Niven's Ringworld. As one grows up one learns to distinguish between SciFi and the real world.

Or not, of course.
 
BenBurch said:
Well, I admit that I too think techno-remediation has a role, bit I know the problems pretty well and know that if we don't stop emissions, and develop some clean energy sources, we won't be able to do enough remediation to make a difference. But Dyson also thinks that existing plants will fill in the gap til we have a technofix. They can't. Or they already would have.
Click to expand...

He's very vague about remediation, and still seems to be thinking in the long-term. And at heart I don't think he feels much (if any) connection with the natural world. After all "we" can survive in entirely artificial environments, such as domed cities or Las Vegas. Not all of us, of course, nor most of the glorious living world we inhabit, but does that really register with him? I doubt it.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
Here's another Dyson quote (from his wikipedia bio):


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson

Nothing in there that any of us warmers would have a fundamental disagreement with (some might argue whether that fraction of a degree change in the tropics is really insignificant). However, it directly contradicts Gerlich's theory, which IIRC you supported.
Click to expand...

Lets face it, mhaze supports everything that it isn't AGW, however contradictory. For example, mhaze believes cosmic rays cause less cloud and more cloud, both at the same time, depending on the requirements of the moment.

At least Freeman Dyson has a scientist's understanding of consistency.
 
fredriks said:
This might be similar to Fred Hoyle. He did a lot of good work in cosmology but his thoughts about the steady state universe and evolution wasn't correct.

Also I believe it has been shown that old scientist are much more likely to disagree with a new theory or world view compared to a young scientist. One standard answer to this at least in regard to AGW is that they don't need the funding but I believe that the young scientist in most of the cases where actually shown to be correct.
Click to expand...

It's often been said that scientists make their contribution in the first half of their careers and spend the second half defending it. To some extent this is a good thing - the enthusiasms of youth can be, shall we say, undisciplined? Science should be conservative. What it mustn't be is dogmatic. Four hundred years of Aristotle as the be-all and end-all was a real drag on progress.

The age-profile of anti-AGW scientists is massively top-heavy. It's the kind of opposition which will never be persuaded but will simply die out. (Freeman Dyson is not typical, in that he doesn't reject the science, but does reject its wider implications.) Plate Tectonics was like that once, as was the "birds are dinosaurs" theory.
 
CapelDodger said:
He's very vague about remediation, and still seems to be thinking in the long-term. And at heart I don't think he feels much (if any) connection with the natural world. After all "we" can survive in entirely artificial environments, such as domed cities or Las Vegas. Not all of us, of course, nor most of the glorious living world we inhabit, but does that really register with him? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

What struck me was the last paragraph on page 3. It may be true that we are in "a relatively cool period in the earth's history" and that "Most of the evolution of life occurred on a planet substantially warmer than it is now", but the explosion in the population of the Homo Sapiens species has occurred during this climate regime.
 
Some interest to see whether the biases of Warmers lead them to gross misunderstandings or myopic misconceptions regarding Dyson's views on the subject. Numerous videos of him talking about climate on Youtube, by the way.

Irrespective of one's own views, it should be possible to read, understand and accurately state those of another. We shall see.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
What struck me was the last paragraph on page 3. It may be true that we are in "a relatively cool period in the earth's history" and that "Most of the evolution of life occurred on a planet substantially warmer than it is now", but the explosion in the population of the Homo Sapiens species has occurred during this climate regime.
Click to expand...

Agriculture. Need I say more?

Freeman Dyson isn't being terribly clever there. All that we know as civilisation, and all but the most basic of the technology he thinks can get us out of this hole, has arisen during this interglacial - a relatively warm period in the history of HomSap. It was quite likely the advent of the current Ice Epoch that set genus Homo off on this crazy ride in the first place.

(You quote one of the comments that reminded me of Monckton (aka Munchkin, aka Monckhausen) because I don't see Dyson thinking it up himself. Somebody's been bending his ear, I suspect, and it hasn't been a diligently critical ear.)

Neither past life, future life, Second Life, nor the afterlife are the issue. This life is what we're part of. For the moment, anyway : if evolutionary history tells us anything it's that we can't take survival for granted.
 
mhaze said:
Ah...I encouraged Warmers to read Gerlich and still do. It's amusing.
Click to expand...

It is indeed amusing. And what's frickin' hilarious is the way Stupids don't see the joke and make a big thing of G&T, as if they're not a comedy duo.

And they should read what Dyson's got to say, also. Might learn something.
Click to expand...

I doubt you could ever learn anything, however much you read.

Prove me wrong. I dare you. Read something and tell us what you've learnt.

The tendency as illustrated in this thread, and in the one on Gerlich you cite, to babble without careful study of the issue and the stands, is unscientific and foolish.
Click to expand...

Ah, sweet unintended irony. What would life be without it?
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
My impression is that Dyson thinks that if the CO2-induced warming (which he believes is occurring) turns out to be harmful, we have, or will soon have, the ability to remove some of the CO2 from the atmosphere, perhaps by planting billions of trees that have been genetically engineered to absorb copious amounts of Carbon. I didn't get the impression that he believes that the excess CO2 will be removed naturally, though I didn't read the article carefully and I had never heard of this guy before today.
Click to expand...
(My bolding)
Wow! Really???
 
mhaze said:
Ah...I encouraged Warmers to read Gerlich and still do. It's amusing. And they should read what Dyson's got to say, also. Might learn something.
Click to expand...
You mean G&T? Not only moronic by high school standards, but strangely not uniformly adopted by the Heartland of Deniers.

The tendency as illustrated in this thread, and in the one on Gerlich you cite, to babble without careful study of the issue and the stands, is unscientific and foolish.
Click to expand...
Got anything other than vacuous drivel?
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
Some interest to see whether the biases of Warmers lead them to gross misunderstandings or myopic misconceptions regarding Dyson's views on the subject. Numerous videos of him talking about climate on Youtube, by the way.

Irrespective of one's own views, it should be possible to read, understand and accurately state those of another. We shall see.
Click to expand...

What do you think he is saying?
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
Though in a pathetic sort of way. Kind of like Judy Woods' WTC=billiard balls paper.
Click to expand...
But if the inquiry is to debunk 19 or so wrong, yet commonly presented, versions of "greenhouse effect" as improperly used by Warmers, yes it is pathetic that such should be required, and expected that it would be scorned by those quite confused, whom he would correct.
 
mhaze said:
But if the inquiry is to debunk 19 or so wrong, yet commonly presented, versions of "greenhouse effect" as improperly used by Warmers, yes it is pathetic that such should be required, and expected that it would be scorned by those quite confused, whom he would correct.
Click to expand...

You mean 19 pathetic strawmen? Someone who claimed that planetary atmospheres can't be warmed through radiative transfer (guess you had never heard of Venus) and who claimed that a decrease in galactic cosmic ray flux decreases cloudiness and then a few days later claimed that the same decrease in galactic cosmic ray flux increases cloudiness is hardly in a position to comment on other people being confused.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom