# Top scientist Freeman Dyson says global warming isn't real. **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [October 18, 2015, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-scientist-freeman-dyson-says-global-warming-isnt-real/734986 "2015-10-18T07:37:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2015, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-scientist-freeman-dyson-says-global-warming-isnt-real/734986/21 "2015-10-19T06:21:08Z")
Freeman Dyson, he’s the guy who invented the vacuum cleaner with the orange ball, right? Pretty smart to come up with such a nifty gadget, I’d say. Don’t see how it qualifies him to dismiss the work of actual climate scientists just on his own say-so, though. [Off-Topic]That orange ball in the vacuum cleaner; is that the Dyson Sphere that the sci-fi writers like to gas on about?[/O-T] ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2015, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-scientist-freeman-dyson-says-global-warming-isnt-real/734986/22 "2015-10-19T08:39:10Z")
> [@Grrr](#): > > Basically a 91yo scientist with more credentials can shake a stick at says global warming isn’t real. He blames crappy computer models and a generation of agenda driven scientist. He has a point. I think politics and ideology have infested science more than at any time post WW-II to the point where I hardly trust most scientists. But I don’t care when it comes to global warming. The derived benefits that comes with tackling the climate issues are well worth pursuing - global warming or not. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2015, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-scientist-freeman-dyson-says-global-warming-isnt-real/734986/23 "2015-10-19T12:53:58Z")
> [@TBG](#): > > No true scientist would say such things. At 91 he’s not a practicing scientist any longer to my knowledge, but I’m not one to say he wasn’t a true scientist because he’s later said stupid things. Scientists can be really smart about some things and really dumb about others–they aren’t a different species of creature. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Knig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@Typo\_Knig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Knig)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2015, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-scientist-freeman-dyson-says-global-warming-isnt-real/734986/24 "2015-10-19T13:57:14Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Linus Pauling was a great scientist and great guy who won Nobels for both chemistry and peace, if memory serves. He then turned into one of the world’s highest profile quacks, advocating for example high dose vitamin C therapy for which there is basically no evidence. > > I suspect you get really used to being a very smart guy whose views turn out to be spectacularly right, and then you get old and crusty and forget you are renowned scientist because your interesting thoughts often turned out to be experimentally confirmed, not because your interesting thoughts are inherently accurate or great. > [@Voyager](#): > > I read the Register, and they are quite good on technology news. Science news, not so much. They know as much about it as Dyson knows about climatology. > > Unlike Gilligan’s Island, real professors don’t know everything about everything. And Pauling, mentioned above, is a great example. Pauling was wrong about [quasicrystals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Shechtman#Work_on_quasicrystals) as well, and was a huge asshole about it. Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics. Einstein called the [Cosmological Constant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant#History) - his own invention - his “biggest blunder”. And so it was, until [empirical evidence decades after Einstein’s death showed the universe has similar behavior, but opposite in sign](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant#Positive_value). Scientists don’t know everything, and aren’t always right. [Sometimes scientists - even previously famous ones - won’t give up on a concept even after it’s been disproven](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science). Climate Change has been well demonstrated for years. We are seeing the effects now. Cherry picking a famous but wrong guy will no more turn back the sea than King Canute’s royal commands. ---
**Author:** ![Surreal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eada6e/32.png) [@Surreal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Surreal)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2015, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-scientist-freeman-dyson-says-global-warming-isnt-real/734986/25 "2015-10-19T14:32:19Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Linus Pauling was a great scientist and great guy who won Nobels for both chemistry and peace, if memory serves. He then turned into one of the world’s highest profile quacks, **advocating for example high dose vitamin C therapy for which there is basically no evidence.** Not so. See what the National Cancer Institute says: > **[Intravenous Vitamin C](https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/vitamin-c-pdq)** > > Intravenous vitamin C, in some studies, has shown improved quality of life and fewer side effects in some cancer patients. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved its use as a treatment for cancer. Learn more in this expert-reviewed... > [@](#): > > High-Dose Vitamin C (PDQ®) > > High-dose vitamin C may be given by intravenous (IV) infusion (through a vein into the bloodstream) or orally (taken by mouth). When taken by intravenous infusion, vitamin C can reach much higher levels in the blood than when the same amount is taken by mouth (see Question 1). > > \*\*Laboratory studies have shown that high doses of vitamin C may slow the growth and spread of prostate, pancreatic, liver, colon, and other types of cancer cells \*\*(see Question 5). > > **Animal studies have shown that high-dose vitamin C treatment blocks tumor growth in certain models of pancreatic, liver, prostate, and ovarian cancers, sarcoma, and malignant mesothelioma** (see Question 5). > > Intravenous high-dose ascorbic acid has caused very few side effects in clinical trials (see Question 7). More here: > **[Intravenously administered vitamin C as cancer therapy: three cases](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1405876/)** > > Early clinical studies showed that high-dose vitamin C, given by intravenous and oral routes, may improve symptoms and prolong life in patients with terminal cancer. Double-blind placebo-controlled studies of oral vitamin C therapy showed no benefit.... > [@](#): > > These cases were analyzed in accordance with the NCI’s Best Case Series process, which reports and interprets apparent responses to alternative therapies. Apart from its implications regarding vitamin C, this article illustrates the use of the Best Case Series approach in assessing the clinical plausibility of novel therapies. None of these case histories provides definitive proof that intravenous vitamin C therapy was responsible for the patient’s unusually favourable clinical course. It is often difficult to prove definitively that a given treatment is responsible for a specific clinical outcome. When the treatment is unorthodox, alternative explanations, even if highly unlikely, tend to be preferred. However, although they do not provide grounds for advocating intravenous vitamin C therapy as a cancer treatment, **these cases increase the clinical plausibility of the notion that vitamin C administered intravenously might have effects on cancer under certain circumstances.** Of course since vitamin C isn’t patentable, so there’s no money to be made here and drug companies have no incentive to conduct further research. ---
**Author:** ![TSBG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@TSBG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TSBG)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2015, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-scientist-freeman-dyson-says-global-warming-isnt-real/734986/26 "2015-10-19T16:52:16Z")
As Max Planck said, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” It is not surprising that there are some older scientists who prefer the certainty of what they thought was true when they were young–even though in the case of Dyson that seems to be debatable at best. I have seen the Planck quote referenced in relation to climate denialists–and then denialists using the quote to imply that climate scientists are going to kill the denialists because they’re ON TO THE CONSPIRACY. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2015, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-scientist-freeman-dyson-says-global-warming-isnt-real/734986/27 "2015-10-19T18:19:06Z")
Let’s poll the polar bears on where the climate is going. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2015, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-scientist-freeman-dyson-says-global-warming-isnt-real/734986/28 "2015-10-20T00:55:31Z")
> [@Surreal](#): > > Of course since vitamin C isn’t patentable, so there’s no money to be made here and drug companies have no incentive to conduct further research. This is clearly not the case since your own cites in turn cite various papers on the subject. This seems to be a controversial topic since [other papers suggest no benefit](http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/content/20/2/210). In any event a key point is that Pauling advocated Vitamin C for everything from cancer to the common cold and the vast majority of it was pure quackery. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2015, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-scientist-freeman-dyson-says-global-warming-isnt-real/734986/29 "2015-10-20T02:33:37Z")
I read the full interview, and he does, I think, have some interesting things to say. First, he thinks it’s a mistake to confuse the two issues of climate change and pollution. He points out that the climate has been trending warmer for quite dome time, and this might be a mixture of hood and bad with maybe more good in the long run, I.e. Yes we lose some islands, but maybe we gain a usable Greenland. He also says that we are trying to model a very complex system, and are unlikely to have the model correct. It could be a lot worse or better than we predict. This resonates with me, as I am a consumer of economic predictions professionally, and that has taught me to be very suspicious of consensus, especially when it is delivered emphatically. To me, the idea that we have reliable models for climate change is pretty funny. He points out that plants react very strongly yo increased carbon dioxide, and that may create a buffer or otherwise alter our predictions. He in no way says that climate change isn’t occurring, I read his article as more really an argument that we don’t know what we think we know. Full disclosure, I’m totally against waste and pollution, but I think the whole climate change thing is a moot argument. There is a lot of people. There is going to be a lot more. We are not going to stop consuming, until we have no choice. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2015, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-scientist-freeman-dyson-says-global-warming-isnt-real/734986/30 "2015-10-20T02:33:51Z")
From Wikipedia: > [@](#): > > theoretical physicist and mathematician, known for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering I don’t see climatologist in there. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2015, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-scientist-freeman-dyson-says-global-warming-isnt-real/734986/31 "2015-10-20T03:20:42Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I read the full interview, and he does, I think, have some interesting things to say. First, he thinks it’s a mistake to confuse the two issues of climate change and pollution. He points out that the climate has been trending warmer for quite dome time, and this might be a mixture of hood and bad with maybe more good in the long run, I.e. Yes we lose some islands, but maybe we gain a usable Greenland. He also says that we are trying to model a very complex system, and are unlikely to have the model correct. It could be a lot worse or better than we predict. This resonates with me, as I am a consumer of economic predictions professionally, and that has taught me to be very suspicious of consensus, especially when it is delivered emphatically. To me, the idea that we have reliable models for climate change is pretty funny. Not for the ones that clean the clock of The Register, ARS Technica. > **[Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science](https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/why-trust-climate-models-its-a-matter-of-simple-science/)** > > How climate scientists test, test again, and use their simulation tools. > [@](#): > > Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science > How climate scientists test, test again, and use their simulation tools. > > Talk to someone who rejects the conclusions of climate science and you’ll likely hear some variation of the following: “That’s all based on models, and you can make a model say anything you want.” Often, they’ll suggest the models don’t even have a solid foundation of data to work with—garbage in, garbage out, as the old programming adage goes. But how many of us (anywhere on the opinion spectrum) really know enough about what goes into a climate model to judge what comes out? > > Climate models are used to generate projections showing the consequences of various courses of action, so they are relevant to discussions about public policy. Of course, being relevant to public policy also makes a thing vulnerable to the indiscriminate cannons on the foul battlefield of politics. > > Skepticism is certainly not an unreasonable response when first exposed to the concept of a climate model. But skepticism means examining the evidence before making up one’s mind. If anyone has scrutinized the workings of climate models, it’s climate scientists—and they are confident that, just as in other fields, their models are useful scientific tools. > [@Scylla](#): > > He points out that plants react very strongly yo increased carbon dioxide, and that may create a buffer or otherwise alter our predictions. > > He in no way says that climate change isn’t occurring, I read his article as more really an argument that we don’t know what we think we know. And he is way out there, not reliable anymore indeed. And his unreliability is already old news: > **[RealClimate: Freeman Dyson’s selective vision](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/freeman-dysons-selective-vision/)** > > RealClimate: In the New York Review of Books, Freeman Dyson reviews two recent ones about global warming, but his review is mostly shaped by his own rather selective vision. 1. Carbon emissions are not a problem because in a few years genetic... > [@Scylla](#): > > Full disclosure, I’m totally against waste and pollution, but I think the whole climate change thing is a moot argument. There is a lot of people. There is going to be a lot more. We are not going to stop consuming, until we have no choice. [Yeah, so it will be good for Greenland, of course Dyson forgets about the harm for many other regions](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s). And then there is once again the denial of what even conservative scientists and economists are telling us, we are not going to end civilization by doing the right thing. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2015, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-scientist-freeman-dyson-says-global-warming-isnt-real/734986/32 "2015-10-20T03:30:55Z")
And again, it is also old news that The Register is a source that should not be used for information about climate change. [QUOTE] Last week [Dec 14, 2010] a paper by researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies led to sensational headlines that the Earth will only warm by as much as 1.64 degrees centigrade -- in a couple of centuries. Sound too good to be true? Of course it does. … Original myth published in: [theregister.co.uk](http://theregister.co.uk) [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![MysteryFellow63427](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e4f/32.png) [@MysteryFellow63427](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MysteryFellow63427)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2015, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-scientist-freeman-dyson-says-global-warming-isnt-real/734986/33 "2015-10-20T03:32:27Z")
> [@Grrr](#): > > Basically a 91yo scientist with more credentials can shake a stick at says global warming isn’t real. He blames crappy computer models and a generation of agenda driven scientist. > > So is this basically an old man shaking his cane at us youngsters? Or does he have a valid point? Mankind is certainly affecting the climate, and seemingly is the sole cause of the increase in CO2 from ~0.028% of the atmosphere to ~0.040% of the atmosphere in the last 150 years. However, my strong impression is that the climate models are crap. There are countless variables at play in Earth’s climate, and their interaction is poorly understood at best. (N.B. The greenhouse gas effect of CO2 is fairly well understood, but that alone doesn’t get us to catastrophe levels of warming–for that, you have to have positive feedback effects.) It’s hard to find an unbiased source discussing climate model accuracy. The most notorious catastrophic warming propaganda site discusses them here: [How reliable are climate models?](https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm) Tellingly, the catastrophic warmist explanation here starts off immediately with a flagrant falsehood, asserting that “If [the climate models] get the past right, there is no reason to think their [future] predictions would be wrong.” While it is important for a climate model to be able to accurately “predict” the past, this is just a barrier of entry to be taken seriously. Any mathematic function can be tweaked to fit a temperature curve of known, prior data. This is a process that all models have to go through, but it doesn’t mean they will be accurate in the future. Anyone can fit data to a curve. A critical take of climate models and their failings can be found here: > **[How reliable are the climate models?](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/17/how-reliable-are-the-climate-models/)** > > Guest essay by Mike Jonas There are dozens of climate models. They have been run many times. The great majority of model runs, from the high-profile UK Met Office’s Barbecue Summer to Roy Spe… The graph on the page of above looks absolutely terrible for a batch of IPCC climate models, showing they’ve missed the mark badly on future predictions. What’s not clear to me is whether this graph relies on all models from a particular time period (which would be damning indeed), or just some. TLDR; “Global warming isn’t real” is a bundle of sticks. But so is “we’re going to hell in a handbasket and we know so because some model predicts +5C warming in 90 years”. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2015, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-scientist-freeman-dyson-says-global-warming-isnt-real/734986/34 "2015-10-20T03:43:37Z")
> [@neuroman](#): > > Mankind is certainly affecting the climate, and seemingly is the sole cause of the increase in CO2 from ~0.028% of the atmosphere to ~0.040% of the atmosphere in the last 150 years. > > However, my strong impression is that the climate models are crap. There are countless variables at play in Earth’s climate, and their interaction is poorly understood at best. (N.B. The greenhouse gas effect of CO2 is fairly well understood, but that alone doesn’t get us to catastrophe levels of warming–for that, you have to have positive feedback effects.) > > It’s hard to find an unbiased source discussing climate model accuracy. The most notorious catastrophic warming propaganda site discusses them here: [How reliable are climate models?](https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm) > > Tellingly, the catastrophic warmist explanation here starts off immediately with a flagrant falsehood, asserting that “If [the climate models] get the past right, there is no reason to think their [future] predictions would be wrong.” While it is important for a climate model to be able to accurately “predict” the past, this is just a barrier of entry to be taken seriously. Any mathematic function can be tweaked to fit a temperature curve of known, prior data. This is a process that all models have to go through, but it doesn’t mean they will be accurate in the future. Anyone can fit data to a curve. Full stop as linking to WUWT as a source is just like a creationist linking to Answers in Genesis in a biology discussion. More from Ars Technica: > **[Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science](https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/why-trust-climate-models-its-a-matter-of-simple-science/#page-2)** > > How climate scientists test, test again, and use their simulation tools. > [@](#): > > Steve Easterbrook, a professor of computer science at the University of Toronto, has been studying climate models for several years. “I’d done a lot of research in the past studying the development of commercial and open source software systems, including four years with NASA studying the verification and validation processes used on their spacecraft flight control software,” he told Ars. > > When Easterbrook started looking into the processes followed by climate modeling groups, he was surprised by what he found. “I expected to see a messy process, dominated by quick fixes and muddling through, as that’s the typical practice in much small-scale scientific software. What I found instead was a community that takes very seriously the importance of rigorous testing, and which is already using most of the tools a modern software development company would use (version control, automated testing, bug tracking systems, a planned release cycle, etc.).” > > “I was blown away by the testing process that every proposed change to the model has to go through,” Easterbrook wrote. “Basically, each change is set up like a scientific experiment, with a hypothesis describing the expected improvement in the simulation results. The old and new versions of the code are then treated as the two experimental conditions. They are run on the same simulations, and the results are compared in detail to see if the hypothesis was correct. Only after convincing each other that the change really does offer an improvement is it accepted into the model baseline.” > > Easterbrook spent two months at the UK Met Office Hadley Centre, observing and describing the operations of the climate modeling group (which is about 200 scientists strong). He looked at everything from code efficiency to debugging to the development process. He couldn’t find much to critique, concluding that “it is hard to identify potential for radical improvements in the efficiency of what is a ‘grand challenge’ science and software engineering problem.” > > Easterbrook has argued against the idea that an independent verification and validation protocol could usefully be applied to climate models. One problem he sees is that climate models are living scientific tools that are constantly evolving rather than pieces of software built to achieve a certain goal. There is, for the most part, no final product to ship out the door. There’s no absolute standard to compare it against either. > > To give one example, adding more realistic physics or chemistry to some component of a model sometimes makes simulations fit some observations less well. Whether you add it or not then depends on what you’re trying to achieve. Is the primary test of the model to match certain observations or to provide the most realistic possible representation of the processes that drive the climate system? And which observations are the most important to match? Patterns of cloud cover? Sea surface temperature? > > As more features have been added, current models have become much more sophisticated than models were 20 years ago, so the standards by which they’re judged have tightened. It’s entirely possible that earlier models would have failed testing that today’s models would pass. But that doesn’t mean that the older models were useless; they may have just gotten fewer physical processes right or had a much lower resolution. > > If, as Easterbrook argues, the models are essentially manifestations of the scientific community’s best available knowledge, there’s already a process in place to evaluate them—science. Experiments are replicated by other groups using their own models. Individual peer-reviewed studies are considered in the context of the accumulated knowledge of climate science. Climate models are not so different from other methods of inquiry in that a new scientific method must be invented especially for them. As for “anyone can fit data to a curve” the reality is that it is the denier sources the ones that have made a sport with that, scientists are not doing that with their models. > [@](#): > > \*\*One surprisingly common misconception about climate models is that they’re just exercises in curve-fitting. The global average temperature record is fed into the model, which matches that trend and spits out a simulation just like it. In this (mistaken) view, having a model that compares well with reality is a necessary outcome of the process. This doesn’t demonstrate that climate models can be trusted to usefully project future trends, but this line of thinking is mistaken for several reasons. > > There’s obviously more to a climate model than a graph of global average temperature. Some parameterizations—those stand-ins for processes that occur at scales finer than a grid cell—are tuned to match observations. After all, they are attempts to describe a process in terms of its large-scale results. But successful parameterizations aren’t used as a gauge of how well the model is reproducing reality. “Obviously, since these factors are tuned for, they don’t count as a model success. However, the model evaluations span a much wider and deeper set of observations, and when you do historical or paleoclimate simulations, none of the data you are interested in has been tuned for,” Schmidt told Ars.\*\* ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2015, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-scientist-freeman-dyson-says-global-warming-isnt-real/734986/35 "2015-10-20T04:45:09Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I read the full interview, and he does, I think, have some interesting things to say. … He points out that the climate has been trending warmer for quite dome time, and this might be a mixture of hood and bad with maybe more good in the long run, I.e. Yes we lose some islands, but maybe we gain a usable Greenland. I agree that even today Dyson is neurotypical. I’ve seen him link to a chart indicating higher CO2 emissions. He agrees that the earth is warming. He appears to agree that there’s a causal link between the two. He wrote about global warming in 2007, and still appeared to believe these things IIRC. Most climate denialists have gone on the record against all these scientific observations… and then turned around and said that they’ve never claimed such things! Still, when he says that losing islands but gaining Greenland is going to be a net gain, he is venturing into the land of social sciences. > [@](#): > > He also says that we are trying to model a very complex system, and are unlikely to have the model correct. It could be a lot worse or better than we predict. This resonates with me, as I am a consumer of economic predictions professionally, and that has taught me to be very suspicious of consensus, especially when it is delivered emphatically. To me, the idea that we have reliable models for climate change is pretty funny. Well, [Hanson’s 1981 paper is strikingly accurate](http://www.universetoday.com/94468/1981-climate-change-predictions-were-eerily-accurate/): it makes an out of sample forecast that you simply could not obtain with a straight line extrapolation. It’s a beautiful piece of science. This isn’t a total shock though, as the reality that CO2 warms the atmosphere is straightforward physics. It’s the dose-response relationship that can be tricky (as well as confounding factors of course). But yes, there is uncertainty. But the downside risks are pretty bad. So spending resources on insurance seems prudent. For the moment, CO2 is priced at… zero. If bread was priced that way, conservatives would freak. But soot or CO2? They think that’s ok. The other line of argument for CO2 mitigation is that human institutions have a rather imperfect record of dealing with physical realities. We build homes on the shore and when a hurricane hits expect the government to pick up the tab. I understand that few informed experts think that New Orleans has been rebuilt in a rational manner, cost/benefit wise. It’s highly unlikely that the country of Bangladesh will happily empty out and move to Antarctica or Greenland. > [@](#): > > He points out that plants react very strongly yo increased carbon dioxide, and that may create a buffer or otherwise alter our predictions. Ok. This is another flag. One flag was that Dyson talked about island nations (which are small in population) rather than Bangladesh (which is large). The other flag relates to a 1990s investigation of CO2 fertilizer. In the laboratory it works. But tests in the forest show much weaker results, mainly because the limiting factor facing most plants is not CO2. Now I’m not saying that result is set in stone. I’m saying it needs to be addressed. > [@](#): > > Full disclosure, I’m totally against waste and pollution, but I think the whole climate change thing is a moot argument. There is a lot of people. There is going to be a lot more. We are not going to stop consuming, until we have no choice. So we therefore should set the price of bread and CO2 at zero, right? Or is it just CO2 that should be wildly mispriced? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2015, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-scientist-freeman-dyson-says-global-warming-isnt-real/734986/36 "2015-10-20T05:19:13Z")
How seriously should we take a fantasist? This is someone known for proposing that human beings could live _inside genetically engineered plants growing on comets._ Do Harlan Ellison and Cordwainer Smith want to chime in? ETA: Wait, let me back up. It’s not bad that Dyson thinks in highly speculative terms. It’s telling, though, that he’s a techno-optimist of a high order; that implies a slant in his world-view–shiny, happy, rose-colored glasses. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2015, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-scientist-freeman-dyson-says-global-warming-isnt-real/734986/37 "2015-10-20T05:30:49Z")
To price anything that imposes substantial costs on society - or even potential costs _and potentially catastrophic costs_ at zero basically defines irresponsibility. I don’t care if we’re discussing bread, trucks, computers or CO2. Anybody who pretends to admire markets but insists on pricing pollutants at zero is a phony. I’m still carving out some space for the techno-optimist Dyson, because his approach at least shows an understanding of science. It is not an especially prominent position and so hasn’t received detailed refutation by thousands. I remain pretty dubious though. ---
**Author:** ![Maserschmidt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/maserschmidt/32/18829_2.png) [@Maserschmidt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maserschmidt)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2015, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-scientist-freeman-dyson-says-global-warming-isnt-real/734986/38 "2015-10-20T06:55:44Z")
> [@TBG](#): > > No true scientist would say such things. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > At 91 he’s not a practicing scientist any longer to my knowledge, but I’m not one to say he wasn’t a true scientist because he’s later said stupid things. Scientists can be really smart about some things and really dumb about others–they aren’t a different species of creature. TBG may be making a “no true Scotsman” joke. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2015, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-scientist-freeman-dyson-says-global-warming-isnt-real/734986/39 "2015-10-20T11:58:16Z")
Dyson is right, in that science has become politicized. look at all the bogus “studies” that our taxes pay for…like "pre-teen girls lack self-esteem’, or “attitudes of teen girls formed by supermodel ideals” kind of crap. Global warming “science” is designed to advance a social agenda, to wit: -keeping the peasants from travelling -enforcing the cult of “sustainability” -enriching the priestly class -making the fedral EPA the arbiter of all business decisions It is all about control. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2015, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-scientist-freeman-dyson-says-global-warming-isnt-real/734986/40 "2015-10-20T12:29:44Z")
[QUOTE=Surreal] Of course since vitamin C isn’t patentable, so there’s no money to be made here and drug companies have no incentive to conduct further research. [/QUOTE] As noted, there is plenty of vitamin C research going on, including potential IV use in cancer therapy (although evidence to date suggests [a very limited role at best](http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/02/10/vitamin-c-for-cancer-trying-to-rise-from-the-grave-once-again/)). As for Linus Pauling, I don’t recall him having much to say about high-dose intravenous vitamin C. What claims he did make for vitamin C have overwhelmingly failed to pan out. There has been a ton of research into use of aspirin, which also is not patent-protected. Lots of research has been done and is ongoing into potential medical uses of various plants, which we are told constantly by alties are being ignored by Big Pharma because they cannot be patented. Obviously there is a huge disconnect from reality here. Something that often gets missed is that derivatives and particular formulations of these supplements/plants are eminently patentable. We have developed numerous plant-based cancer drugs (including taxol and vincristine) despite this “no one is interested because they can’t be patented” trope, which needs to be retired because it is erroneous, insulting and stupid. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-scientist-freeman-dyson-says-global-warming-isnt-real/734986.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-scientist-freeman-dyson-says-global-warming-isnt-real/734986.md?page=3)