
Interview with Freeman Dyson, Reluctant Global Warming Skeptic - nether
http://e360.yale.edu/digest/with-freeman-dyson-reluctant-global-warming-skeptic
======
nether
Full interview:
[http://e360.yale.edu/features/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_cli...](http://e360.yale.edu/features/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_climate_establishment)

------
allthatglitters
This will do ...
[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?_r...](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all&ref=magazine&)

------
woodandsteel
From the interview:e360: Do you mind being thrust in the limelight of talking
about this when it is not your main interest. You’ve suddenly become the
poster child for global warming skepticism.

Dyson: Yes, it is definitely a tactical mistake to use somebody like me for
that job, because I am so easily shot down. I’d much rather the job would be
done by somebody who is young and a real expert. But unfortunately, those
people don’t come forward.

e360: Are there people who are knowledgeable about this topic who could do the
job of pointing out what you see as the flaws?

Dyson: I am sure there are. But I don’t know who they are.

------
basicplus2
"Click here to read full interview"

takes you to..

"Sorry, we can’t find the page you’re looking for."

~~~
nether
Err thanks, correct link:
[http://e360.yale.edu/features/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_cli...](http://e360.yale.edu/features/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_climate_establishment)

------
noobermin
I think there is a general sense some scientists get in which they judge a
field from the outside based on their contacts with it, reading a paper or
two, attending some meetings or engaging in conversation with others and so
on. I am just a graduate student, but I sometimes tell myself it was a good
idea to bail from a high profile and stressful CMS (LHC detector) group
looking specifically for supersymmetry. I took a look at their results at that
point, the general progress of the search for any sign of SUSY, the group
environment, the stress level, and the advisors, and from that I betted
against them and switched groups. Today, I am very happy in my current field
and as HEP funds dry up, I am relieved I made the switch.

But, if I'm very honest with myself, what the hell did I know then? I just
made a bet and won, it may have been informed but it was still uncertain then.
Survivorship bias is a bitch after all, right?

I am not aware of Dyson's full body of work, but I am of course aware of the
one thing most people know him for, the famous Dyson series from which springs
modern particle physics. Dyson is on the mathy side of science, so it's not
too surprising that he feels uncomfortable with fudge factors and the lot of
them in the less fundamental sciences. You can't model everything exactly down
to the bone due to computational constraints, you have to approximate and
sometimes be happy when you get within an order of magnitude. Mathematicians I
know and particle theorists I know are _not_ comfortable with that. I at first
wasn't when I switched to Laser Plasma and I still am not sometimes, but, it
isn't completely arbitrary, the one saving grace that the more applied
sciences have is we have experiment[0]. It's not that particle physicists
don't have it, it's just that it requires the huge colliders which aren't that
easy to make, while for Laser Plasma (my thing), you can shoot a target
multiple times before someone can finish their simulations on a HPC system.
For climate scientists, they have a wealth of history of temperatures to fit
against and their predictions are surprisingly good. That to many of us is the
gold standard, finding a model that fits the reality.

So fudge factors and fuzzy models are the norm in these parts, and how that
would rub someone like Dyson the wrong way is understandable. Does that mean
he's right? Dyson is extremely successful and one of my personal physics heros
(right up there with Yang and Hermann Weyl) so perhaps he's come to trust that
instinct where he might judge a field and bail (like it sounds like he did
with modeling crowd, ironically, I'm in that crowd), but again, as an expert
who doesn't know the deep facts, he is right when he says that he shouldn't be
taken as a leading voice against it, especially when he doesn't want to be.

[0] (not counting the extremely messy systems like biologists or sociologists
have. Weather is close, but climate I think is a little better)

------
wrs
[2009]

