
The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson - eisenkr
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?hp=&pagewanted=all
======
Rod
Quoting the great Bertrand Russell:

 _"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."_

Interesting how so many people who know NOTHING about Science are SO sure that
global warming is caused by man. Such dogma reminds me of the times of the
16th century Inquisition: no amount of evidence will ever convince the nutcase
_warmists_ that there MIGHT be a possibility that global warming is not caused
by humans.

Dyson is a top physicist. Just because he dared to go against the mainstream
dogma, people seem to want to lynch him. I thought that we, humans, had
evolved from our tribal and primitive ways. But we still get carried away by
mass hysteria and delusion.

There's no place for politics or ideology in Science. Only observation and
experiment matter. Dyson is not alone. Many other physicists have been
cautious and warned that we should not jump to conclusions based on noisy,
ambiguous and incomplete data. They, too, were ostracized. So much for
tolerance...

~~~
DaniFong
In business, war, governance, love, and the climate, people are forced to make
decisions based on sorely incomplete data because time is of the essence, and
it is all they're ever going to get. If likely exaggeration is to be called
out, so too are those who assert that doubt should necessarily imply inaction.

~~~
robotrout
Why is "time of the essence"? Who told you so? Al "Save the Polar Bears" Gore?
I promise you, those polar bears were in no danger.

Do you know what a stampede is? It's a frightening thing, where a large herd
of animals is frightened and begin to run. They run and run, trampeling
anything in their path, killing anything that gets in front of them, and each
other, as they run from the danger on their heals. Never would the danger they
flee cause nearly the harm that the stampede itself causes.

There are groups in the world that can stampede the human herd as well. The
amount of stampeding that's been happening in the last 10 years is amazing. We
stampede through this Patriot Act, and that Stimulus Plan, and the global
warming stampede has been worse than both of them.

Take a breath. Time is not of the essence. When somebody tell you that,
they're trying to make you rush to judgment and make a poor decision.
Timeshare salesman do it, politicians do it, and I'm sorry to tell you, Al
Gore does it.

~~~
DaniFong
Al Gore has nothing to do with my reasoning process.

[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119122043.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119122043.htm)

These are the risks mentioned in the IPCC Synthesis report. The seem sound and
reasonable.

    
    
        * The report says that around 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the plant and animal species assessed are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if global average temperatures exceed 1.5 degree C to 2.5 degree C over late 20th century levels.
        * The report also points to the likelihood of "irreversible" impacts. For example if temperature increases exceed about 3.5 degrees C, between 40 per cent and 70 per cent of the species assessed might be at increased risk of extinction.
        * Increases in sea surface temperatures of about one-three degrees C are projected to result in more "frequent coral bleaching events and widespread mortality."
        * There is also concern over the oceans and seas becoming more acidic as they absorb rising levels of carbon dioxide and the impacts on "marine shell-forming organisms" like coral reefs.
        * Other reasons for concern focus on the risks of extreme weather events with higher confidence in the projected increases in droughts, heatwaves and floods as well as their adverse impacts.
        * The report also flags up concern that the poor and the elderly in low-latitude and less-developed areas including those in dry areas and living on mega-deltas are likely to suffer most.
        * There is high confidence that by mid-century "many semi-arid areas, for example the Mediterranean basin, western United States, southern Africa and northeast Brazil, will suffer a decrease in water resources due to climate change."
        * The IPCC summary also expresses concern that any benefits linked with climate change will be gone after more modest temperature rises. The guide, launched after five days of discussions in the Spanish city of Valencia, will be essential reading for delegates attending the upcoming UN climate convention meeting in Bali, Indonesia.
        * Concern is also raised that new observations linked with the Greenland and possibly Antarctic ice sheets may mean that the rate of ice loss will increase above previous forecasts.

------
ruby_roo
I personally _feel_ that it is better to err on the side of caution in regards
to global warming. I say "feel" because I'm just not smart enough to navigate
fact from fiction on this issue anymore. There's going to be extremes on both
sides, but I don't see what we have to gain by not taking better care of our
planet.

Even if global warming is only partially manmade, shouldn't we do what we can
to minimize the effect? And plain old pollution is a visible problem
regardless of warming effects; it's now in our food and water supply.

That is how I see this issue. Hope that is a reasonable approach considering
all the FUD out there. I don't see how society is harmed by erring on the side
of caution on this one.

~~~
robotrout
"I don't see how society is harmed by erring on the side of caution"

Let me try to help you see then.

Even though it's extremely important that you prevent tooth decay, and even if
you have a huge chunk of "Jolly Rancher" stuck between your teeth, it would be
a non-optimal use of resources to use your last match as you were shivering on
the side of a mountain with a broken leg, to dislodge the offending piece of
candy.

I'm sure you'll agree with this, in this extreme case. But what you are
missing, is that humans have a limited supply of productivity that we use to
feed and house the populations of our respective countries, and hopefully, to
build infrastructure for the next generation to feed and house their
populations. When you siphon off that productivity to dislodge a piece of
candy, you better be damn sure the candy is going to harm you. In the case of
the warmists, since you are literally stealing food and medicine from people's
mouths with your demands of what is necessary, you better be damn certain
you're right.

~~~
cgranade
Given how much we spend on entertainment and other luxuries, is it really fair
to say call spending money on what is likely essential to the preservation of
our species "literally stealing food and medicine from people's mouths?" Hell,
given what we spend on killing each other over oil and religion, how is it
that spending money on understanding and dealing with climate change is
stealing? In the United States alone, we have spent over $600 billion on the
Iraq war-- even a few of those billions could make the difference between
action and inaction on climate change.

~~~
anamax
> even a few of those billions could make the difference between action and
> inaction on climate change.

Really? If we spent $20B on global warming you'd go away happy?

> is it really fair to say call spending money on what is likely essential to
> the preservation of our species

Interestingly enough, if you read the cost estimates from the advocates, it's
reasonably cheap to deal with the problem after it occurs, at least compared
to the total global GDP at that time.

The only way you get to "spend now" vs "spend later" on an economic basis is
by using a negative rate of return.

~~~
cgranade
Of course it'd take more than $20 billion over the span of our lifetimes. I
meant that within the context of the Iraq War spending, diverting even a few
of those 600 billions of dollars could have made a very positive impact and
would have meant that Bush was not completely inactive on the issue. I realize
I phrased that poorly, and I'm sorry for that, but my point still stands:
compared to what we spend on killing each other, the money that is being asked
to save our whole way of life is chump change. Moreover, the issue of climate
change runs much deeper than economics alone. Talking about rates of return
and deferred action neglect the potential for catastrophe if we simply
continue to do nothing.

~~~
anamax
> would have meant that Bush was not completely inactive on the issue.

Actually, he wasn't. He didn't do what you want, but that's a very different
than nothing. Are you going with ignorance or "I was trying to emphasize my
point"?

> I realize I phrased that poorly, and I'm sorry for that, but my point still
> stands: compared to what we spend on killing each other, the money that is
> being asked to save our whole way of life is chump change

The mainstream folks who want money for climate change disagree. They want
hundreds of billions of dollars.

If they're wrong, that's a huge deal. Let's see some details supporting your
"chump change" estimate. Are they wrong?

> Moreover, the issue of climate change runs much deeper than economics alone.
> Talking about rates of return and deferred action neglect the potential for
> catastrophe if we simply continue to do nothing.

Catastrophe is short-hand for "very expensive", so you're merely making a
"numbers-free" economic argument.

The AGW folks have predicted the costs of "catastrophe" and "measures to
avoid". (The latter are surely low because they don't significantly affect the
predicted climate change.)

Once again, if they're wrong, that's a big deal.

Let's see the details.

------
LargeWu
I think Dyson's biggest hangup seems to be that much of the doomsaying
surrounding global warming is based on computerized models, which is not,
strictly speaking, science. You probably can't empirically test most of the
climate models being produced.

~~~
cgranade
Not science? Better tell the computer scientists and the computational
physicists...

Science is, at its most basic, our attempt to understand the world. As such,
science employs many different tools and approaches, including numerical
modeling. In particular. numerical analysis is a very well understood field of
mathematics that allows us to rigorously analyze complicated problems by using
one of the most innovative tools ever devised: the computer. Of course, one
can make an inaccurate model as easily as one can write down an inaccurate
equation or make a mistake in a derivation. That doesn't mean that the tool
isn't a part of science.

~~~
LargeWu
I'm not saying models aren't tools of science. They are very important.
However, the most important part of science is the part about independently
recreating and verifying results. You simply cannot do that with long range
climate models without waiting for that time to elapse and seeing if the model
predicted what it was supposed to predict.

I'm not saying the models are wrong, or that climate change doesn't exist.
What I'm saying is that calling the predictions of these models "science" is a
bit misleading. The underlying factors maybe be based on scientific knowledge,
but the models themselves are based on statistics, not science, because they
can't be empirically verified.

~~~
joeyo
It sounds like you are arguing that science needs to be observational to be
"real." I'd argue that science needs both observations and theory and that
either half alone is incomplete. Think of the models as a manifestation of the
theory. It would be nice if you could solve a set of equations for the
atmosphere in closed form, wouldn't it? But you can't so you run a numerical
simulation.

Anyway, it's hardly surprising that so much effort has gone into theoretical
climate science, since, as you observed, it's difficult running a controlled
experiment with the atmosphere.

------
jacoblyles
The use of the word "heretic" is telling. This issue has long since taken on
the overtone of a religious debate rather than a scientific one. I don't think
someone should be considered a "heretic" when he has on his side an MIT
climate physicist, a former director of climate science at NASA, a Nobel
physicist, IPCC participants, and hundreds of other relevant intellectuals.

Whoever said "the debate on Global Warming is over" ought to be forever
considered a disingenuous political hack.

~~~
dejb
Yes it is telling of the way the journalist hoped to frame the story. A good
way to spice up an otherwise ordinary story. Better than 'Aged Physicist
disagrees with dominant theory'. I'd call it a piece of disingenuous hack work
but it worked so well I have to admire it.

------
hhm
"A group of scientists will be sitting around the cafeteria, and one will idly
wonder if there is an integer where, if you take its last digit and move it to
the front, turning, say, 112 to 211, it’s possible to exactly double the
value. Dyson will immediately say, “Oh, that’s not difficult,” allow two short
beats to pass and then add, “but of course the smallest such number is 18
digits long.”"

So how did he know that?

~~~
shrughes
Because the decimal expansion of 19 repeats after 18 digits.

That means all the fractions 1/19 .. 18/19 are just rotations of each other.
And 20/19 = 1 + 1/19, which means that 2/19 is a single rotation away.

If you've ever noticed that 142857 * [1..6] produces different rotations of
the same number and wondered why, you might have thought about this. Dyson had
probably already done all the hard work on the problem and knew immediately
that the answers were rotations of some repeating fraction, and one where
multiplying by 2 gives rotations by 1 digit.

~~~
nkurz
Thanks for the insight. I wouldn't have noticed any similarity to the
multiples of 1/19. Accepting this, though, is there a reason it would have
been obvious to him that there was no smaller number?

The first such number, by the way, does indeed have 18 digits. I got there by
considering every final digit and figuring out how long the string needed to
be before the final digit reoccurred with no carry.

(edit: oops, just read your explanation below which pretty much answers this)

~~~
shrughes
Well, since you asked for an obvious reason, and not a completely separate
derivation, here it is.

The process of rotating a repeating decimal expansion x by 1 digit means
adding some integer n and dividing by 10.

(n + x) / 10 = 2x

Simplifying, n = 19x, i.e. x = n/19. So you know the number has to correspond
to a decimal expansion of n/19, which is 18 digits in length.

------
eisenkr
I just posted an essay where Freeman Dyson explains his own views about the
topic (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=532426> or, more directly,
<http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html> )

------
galactus
Lets be honest, the REAL problem here with the idea of global warming caused
by humans is that it can not simply be solved by the market. This possibility
seems to make hardcore libertarians so uncomfortable that they can only hope
no such problem exist.

~~~
tome
This is an incredibly astute point, and shows great awareness of human
factors. I'm very pleased to see it on hacker news.

------
anamax
Speaking of data, we've been dropping probes into deep water for almost a
decade now. Since the heat capacity of the oceans dwarfs that of the
atmosphere, surely the temperature of the water is relevant.

What are the oceans doing? If they're getting colder, the earth may well be
losing heat, even if the atmosphere is getting warmer (which it hasn't been
for almost a decade).

It would also be nice to know the temperature of the earth because its heat
capacity dwarfs that of the oceans.

------
samas
Unless I am mistaken, acidification of the oceans has been demonstrated. So
has the loss of large volumes of fresh water stored in glaciers, as well as
the loss of coastal land as sea level rises. Natural systems are fragile, and
we continue to poke and push them, with damages (for example, loss of
biodiversity) that are not clearly obvious and that are in many cases simply
irreparable. I won't belabor this point, although obviously much more could be
said.

Burning carbon based materials to generate energy is, in the long term,
unsustainable--there is a finite supply, and getting at the remaining sources
will continue to become more expensive and more environmentally invasive (see:
mountaintop removal). But enough about the environment, there are more
important considerations (After all, we will eventually leave this planet,
right?).

Our eventual shift to renewable sources of energy is inevitable. Worries about
the consequences of climate change are finally gaining momentum in the public
conscious. That means that now is the time to go full speed on development and
roll-out of renewable energy. Mr. Dyson mentions that "By restricting CO2 you
make life more expensive and hurt the poor."

Interesting comment from the man described as looking "like a person taking
the longer view," because (given time) cheap abundant energy would do an
incredible amount for the poor and starving. Deserts could be irrigated and
farmed with desalinized water, pumps could preserve our coastal cities,
really, the applications of cheap and abundant renewable energy are limited by
our imaginations. Why leave that for our childrens' or grandchildrens'
generation? What are we waiting for?

There is always a place for some healthy skepticism, but I fear that with
respect to this particular issue skepticism has given the world plenty of
motivation to procrastinate.

~~~
robotrout
With all due respect, I could have cut and pasted your post from any global
warming website. I note this is your first comment on this group. Did you come
just for this topic?

In this utopia you describe, you neglect to explain what miraculous devices
will produce this infinite energy supply. I think that's an important point
that you left out. If you're wrong on that point, then we've hurt people for
nothing, right?

Since we're cutting and pasting from web sites, let me just paste the
following from <http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html> ,
Everything else is just philosophy.

________________

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting
for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and
figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of
water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately)
overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases,
carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous
other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the
latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through
farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these
emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we
can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human
emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global
climate.

~~~
thaumaturgy
With all due respect, I could have cut and pasted your post from any global
warming denial website.

The bulk of what I read on water vapor stated that although the process was so
far poorly understood, most scientists (for the moment) believe that increased
water vapor is an amplifying side-effect, not a primary cause, of climate
change. Basically, that increased temperatures lead to an increase in water
vapor due to the evaporation of ice, small lakes, and rivers, and that in turn
further drives climate change.

I see that most of your comments in this thread fly in the face of what most
climate scientists believe to be happening.

~~~
koningrobot
_I see that most of your comments in this thread fly in the face of what most
climate scientists believe to be happening._

I'd ask for sources, but there's no way to confirm that the people behind them
are actual "climate scientists", whatever that means these days. It's hard to
see who's who anymore, but smug confidence like this definitely rings my alarm
bells.

~~~
samas
Environmental science is inherently stochastic and messy, but to write off an
entire branch, as you seem to have done, is unfair to those who pursue careers
in improving our understanding of climate.

"there's no way to confirm that the people behind them are actual "climate
scientists", whatever that means"

Well, the system that we have is that of peer reviewed literature. People who
are interested in environmental science or other related fields pursue
research in those fields, and some happen to research climate.

Why do you put the words 'climate scientists' in quotations? Yes, there are
scientists who study climate, much like there are scientists who study other
environmental/biological/chemical phenomena.

"It's hard to see who's who anymore, but smug confidence like this definitely
rings my alarm bells."

I'm not sure what this adds to the discussion. Could you perhaps rephrase or
reword; maybe I've missed the content of the statement you intended to convey?

~~~
koningrobot
I certainly didn't mean to write off climate science or scientists. My point
was that _I_ don't know how to distinguish the science from the propaganda,
except in obvious cases. I find it hard to believe that other armchair
scientists can be so sure of themselves. They _could_ be right, but to me its
mostly a sign of propaganda.

So _I_ don't know who the climate scientists are. Lots of parties are making
wild claims and saying science is on their side. Take
<http://realclimate.org/> for instance. Is this real climate science? I mean,
anyone could put up a website with the words "climate science from climate
scientists". How does one tell?

Though I think you're right that peer-reviewed literature gives an indication.

------
dschobel
You have to admire Dyson's blunt honesty:

 _If what he says were obviously wrong, he wouldn’t have achieved what he has.
But Hansen has turned his science into ideology. He’s a very persuasive fellow
and has the air of knowing everything. He has all the credentials. I have
none. I don’t have a Ph.D. He’s published hundreds of papers on climate. I
haven’t. By the public standard he’s qualified to talk and I’m not. But I do
because I think I’m right. I think I have a broad view of the subject, which
Hansen does not. I think it’s true my career doesn’t depend on it, whereas his
does. I never claim to be an expert on climate. I think it’s more a matter of
judgement than knowledge._

I especially love the point about Hansen's career hinging on his theory being
borne out which seems to be a general issue with science which crosses over
into the mainstream consciousness.

------
dejb
Quick summary

Dyson isn't so sure that global warming is cause by rising levels of CO2.
Either way he doesn't see this as being a big problem as global warming would
be a good thing for the world.

He is more a Global Warming Embracer rather than a Global Warming Denier.

------
patrickg-zill
Subject matter - interesting.

Purple prose by author earnestly trying to convince you of his erudition, and
constant asides that do nothing but distract - not interesting.

~~~
1gor
No, general public needs to learn about his integrity, erudition and
impeccable scientific standing.

This is important because Dyson's opponents as a rule try some sort of
character assassination instead of sticking to the subject matter.

~~~
kingkongrevenge
Still, the writing is horrible.

~~~
prewett
Having gone to the article hoping for details on why Dyson disbelieves global
warming, I'm disappointed like you. On reflection, I think the author intended
the article to be about Dyson himself, and as such, I kind of like the
writing. But, yeah, I'm disappointed about the lack of details.

~~~
electromagnetic
The title of the article here is misleading. He isn't the global warming
heretic, he's always been a heretic in everything that he's done or talked
about. The simple fact is he's quite often accurate.

------
electromagnetic
I find it interesting that the planet is presumed to be warming at roughly
0.02C a year, yet we pump out [enough energy to raise the temperature by 20C a
year]. (Ed: Sorry, I'd mistaken my numbers. Our potential to raise the
temperature of the atmosphere is actually 200 times what I'd mistakenly put
(originally 0.1C). Our potential to raise the temperature of the oceans is
0.1C a year, when in fact the oceans temperature raises at 0.01C. Sorry for
the mistake folks!)

I have several problems with all the eco-energy projects. Namely wind turbines
are likely to cause more ecological problems than solve, I'm sorry but they're
killing off bats in phenomenal numbers and killing a species high up on the
food chain causes problems. We do it to seals, but we eat the fish that they
would so ecologically it's not all that harmful... unless we're going to start
eating millions of tons of bugs a year, I think killing off the bats might
cause a serious problem. I mean the last thing we need are plagues of locust.

The other problem with wind turbines is that they slow local wind speeds, if
this is produced on a global scale this could inhibit the transfer of energy
to the night-side of earth to be radiated away. This is the same problem that
wave-energy will produce, mass use of this technology will cause a reduction
in water flow, which in turn will cause more energy to be stored by the water.
This one is particularly unpredictable: reduced tidal action will reduce the
cooling effect of water vaporisation, however this will likely be balanced by
an increase in evaporation, yet this could potentially be disastrous because
hotter water = stronger storms, so mass use of wave-power technologies could
drastically increase tropical storms, more than global warming ever could.
Hopefully the wind turbines can slow these down!

I haven't even touch on the fact that wind turbines place angular stress on
the ground they sit on, which on a large scale has never been predicted. I
mean we're talking about placing angular forces on entire tectonic plates that
will change as the direction of the wind. The effect of this is inherently
unknown, and I don't want to know what could happen at stressed fault-lines.

My problem with solar power is that it reduces the albedo of the planet and
ultimately turns the electrical energy into thermal (infrared) energy, which
is then trapped by CO2! Lowering the planets albedo will increase global
warming even if we decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, this problem
will be compounded if they ever get the holy grail of solar energy, the
orbital solar power plant. Placing solar power plants into space won't
increase the planets albedo, however it will transfer ridiculous amounts of
energy to the planet and to be viable they only need a 20-30% efficiency due
to the sheer abundance of energy. However, the other 70-80% will still be
absorbed by the atmosphere and convert to thermal energy. (If anyone doubts
this, please put a cup of water in the microwave and this is essentially the
result as 70-80% of the energy will be absorbed by the atmosphere, which is
roughly equivalent to a 10 meter layer of distilled water)

Global Warming is (95% probable) a byproduct of human civilization in one way
or another. However the solution proposed by environmentalists is a planet
wide geo-forming project.

I think the potential for harm could be much, much greater from geo-forming
the entire planet than sea levels rising. We know what global warming _could_
do to the planet, we don't know what geo-forming _could_ do to the planet and
no one is looking at it.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person on the planet that realises the
solutions to the problem are potentially worse than the problem itself.

------
cliffw
Dyson was originally a mathematician and is judging global warming by the
standards of a mathematical proof. Of course, no proof outside mathematics can
meet that strict standard. Hence, his global warming doubts.

