|
|
|
May 17, 2007
Me? I'm Just A Liberal Arts Major
From an interview at Ccnet... Benny Peiser: In a Winter Commencement Address at the University of Michigan two years ago you called yourself a heretic on global warming, the most notorious dogma of modern science. You have described global warming anxiety as grossly exaggerated and have openly voiced your doubts about the reliability of climate models. These models, you argue, "do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields, farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in." There seems to be an almost complete endorsement of the world's scientific organisations and elites of these models together with claims that they reliably epitomize reality and can consistently predict future climate change. How do you feel belonging to a tiny minority of scientists who dare to voice their doubts openly? Please, Sir. Could I have some more? You students are proud possessors of the PhD, or some similar token of academic respectability. You have endured many years of poverty and hard labor. Now you are ready to go to your just rewards, to a place on the tenure track of the university, or on the board of directors of a company. Thank you, sir. P.S. One more thing. I met your father's cousin Ernst Straus once when he came to a conference in Princeton. He gave an interesting talk about the frustrations of being Einstein's assistant. He said Einstein treated his assistants as slaves, in the tradition of the German Geheimrat. It was a thankless job with very little joy, and he escaped as soon as he could. Yes, thank you! posted by Justin on 05.17.07 at 01:44 PM
Comments
He's quite clear here that his objection is to the use of "global" in "global warming". He agrees that human release of CO2 is increasing the greenhouse effect, and observing that this effect is greatest at high latitudes. In other comments, Mr. Dyson has emphasized that he believes that there are other problems that should take higher priority. He also attacks the extreme views that global warming represents a looming catastrophe. But remember, he does acknowledge that it's a problem. His objection is to the perceived magnitude of the problem, not its existence. Froblyx, you'd find very very few people, even among the global warming "denialists", who don't believe that some degree of warming is happening, or that there is an anthropogenic contribution to it, or that some of that anthropogenic contribution is due to CO2. That's a straw man erected by the people who insist that global warming is the crisis of our times --- like Gore. Charlie (Colorado) · May 18, 2007 09:57 AM Charlie, I'm glad we can agree on the basic AGW hypothesis -- there are in fact several correspondents here who DO in fact deny it. And I further agree with you that it is NOT the most important political problem we face. I believe that, if we'd get off our fat butts and address the problem, we could get make some good headway against it for well under $100 billion a year (USA only). That's not top-level crisis, but definitely something that deserves attention. BTW, this use of a financial criterion is the best way to start off a discussion of how to deal with the problem. How much money are you willing to spend to address it? It's not the best way; the ideal approach is to come up with a proper cost/benefits analysis. But it's a good start. Froblyx · May 18, 2007 10:41 AM you mean AW, not AGW Anonymous · May 18, 2007 11:01 AM well, just to make myself clear then: I *do* deny the idea of anthropogenic global warming Unlike most other self-proclaimed scientists roaming the internet's comment sections, I am familiar with the concepts of "dynamic systems" and "feedback mechanisms" 20 years from now, I will be denying the idea of anthropogenic global cooling, despite the hysteria that will be surrounding it 1bodyand2faces · May 18, 2007 11:45 PM "Unlike most other self-proclaimed scientists roaming the internet's comment sections, I am familiar with the concepts of "dynamic systems" and "feedback mechanisms"" Congratulations. And I take it you're familiar with the Stefan-Boltzmann law? Do you have any specific criticisms of the IPCC report? Froblyx · May 19, 2007 09:13 PM 1bodyand2faces, Yes, quite a few climatologists and climate modelers also are familiar with dynamical systems and feedback mechanisms. It somehow doesn't stop them from using their knowledge to work on the global circulation models to model the climatic changes of the past and to project it into the future. Neal J. King · May 20, 2007 10:15 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
May 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
May 2007
April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Al Be Doh!
• Divisive argument? • Vast shameful coverup unearthed! • Relabeling and regurgitating Wolcott's stew • Shaky base to build on • If you think our candidates suck... • MY CHEAP TABLOID JOURNALISM, CONTINUED.... • Peace, And I Mean That Most Sincerely • Reynolds Likes Murders, I Like Sex • Forgotten revolutionary
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Read Mr. Dyson closely; what he's saying may not be what you want to hear. Here's a more pertinent quote from Mr. Dyson:
As a result of the burning of coal and oil, the driving of cars, and other human activities, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at a rate of about half a percent per year. … The physical effects of carbon dioxide are seen in changes of rainfall, cloudiness, wind strength, and temperature, which are customarily lumped together in the misleading phrase "global warming." This phrase is misleading because the warming caused by the greenhouse effect of increased carbon dioxide is not evenly distributed. In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on the transport of heat by radiation is less important, because it is outweighed by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor. The effect of carbon dioxide is more important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. The warming mainly occurs where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading, because the global average is only a fraction of a degree while the local warming at high latitudes is much larger.
He's quite clear here that his objection is to the use of "global" in "global warming". He agrees that human release of CO2 is increasing the greenhouse effect, and observing that this effect is greatest at high latitudes. In other comments, Mr. Dyson has emphasized that he believes that there are other problems that should take higher priority. He also attacks the extreme views that global warming represents a looming catastrophe. But remember, he does acknowledge that it's a problem. His objection is to the perceived magnitude of the problem, not its existence.