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?
Freeman Dyson: I am always happy to be in the minority. Concerning the climate models, I know enough of the details to be sure that they are unreliable. They are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behavior in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
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.
And here am I, a person who never had a PhD myself and fought all my life against the PhD system and everything it stands for. Of course I fought in vain. The grip of the PhD system on academic life is tighter today than it has ever been...
Unfortunately, I am an old heretic. Old heretics don't cut much ice. What the world needs is young heretics. I am hoping that one or two of you may fill that role. So I will tell you briefly about three heresies that I'm promoting.
The first of my heresies says that all the fluff about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of twilight model experts and the crowd of diluted citizens that believe the numbers predicted by their models. Of course they say I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak.
But I have studied their climate models and know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics and do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They 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.
The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That's why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.
There's no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer, but the warming is not global...
I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans.
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.
Benny Peiser: Thank you for the interview, Professor Dyson!
Yes, thank you!
posted by Justin on 05.17.07 at 01:44 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/5038
Comments
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.
Froblyx · May 17, 2007 03:11 PM
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.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
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.