4 ms·

A fascinating talk, and a counter viewpoint from a top physicist: "Freeman Dyson on the Global Warming Hysteria" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs ht

by Radim 8y ago

A fascinating talk, and a counter viewpoint from a top physicist: "Freeman Dyson on the Global Warming Hysteria" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs

ahmedalsudani 8y ago
One who is supremely unqualified for commenting on this topic and an outlier within the mass of scientists.
- Radim 8y ago
  Science is about seeking the truth, not "mass" numbers. I'll take a well-informed, nuanced opinion of Dyson, a colleague of Einstein and Feynman, over "The outcome is death, and it’s the end of most life on the planet" (actual quote! the hubris) social scientist any day of the week. I realize this is an emotional, politically charged topic. It's unlikely anyone's changing their mind, one way or another.
  - StavrosK 8y ago
    > Science is about seeking the truth, not "mass" numbers. Oh yes, how convenient that this argument is used to basically say "scientific consensus is wrong, science goes by truth, not by consensus". How odd that scientific consensus always seems to converge around the truth. > I'll take a well-informed colleague of Einstein and Feynman over "The outcome is death, and it’s the end of most life on the planet" (actual quote! the hubris) social scientist any day of the week. And all those colleagues say the situation is dire.
    - catawbasam 8y ago
      The consensus per ipcc is that agw is very unlikely to lead to human extinction.
      - StavrosK 8y ago
        That doesn't mean it's fun.
        rbanffy 8y ago
        Or that more than a couple million could possibly survive and repopulate the Earth.
        AstralStorm 8y ago
        This is banking on the assumption that ocean ecosystems will adapt to vastly acidified and warmer waters... (Or that we will help them via introducing GM species.) Later effects would be acidified soil. In large enough amounts, the results look like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Triangle_(region) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Triangle_(region)
        rbanffy 8y ago
        Again, we are talking about human extinction. The stakes are pretty high and I'm sure at least one group would set aside the resources to preserve a minimum viable number of humans (and a lot of fertilized eggs) along with enough environment to sustain them long enough. Extinction implies all humans will die. That's very unlikely, even if the planet takes a very significant hit.
  - ahmedalsudani 8y ago
    > I'll take a well-informed, nuanced opinion of Dyson, a colleague of Einstein and Feynman ... I'm sorry, but being a colleague of Einstein and Feynman is not a qualification. Einstein famously rejected quantum mechanics because he felt that God would not create a world where it can be true. Feynman (a personal hero of mine) did not brush his teeth because he thought there was not sufficient scientific evidence that it helps keep them healthy. History is full of brilliant people who make mistakes. Freeman Dyson has not done sufficient research to reach the conclusion that he has, and he certainly hasn't gone back to look at how the predictions have panned out (both from the climate change camp and other one). He is a charlatan when it comes to climate science. It is not wise to worship any single person and accept their claims uncritically, and an appeal to an authority is usually a weak argument.
    - Radim 8y ago
      I agree with most of what you said. (with the caveat that unless you're an expert yourself, common sense and appeal to authority are about all you have) > Freeman Dyson has not done sufficient research to reach the conclusion that he has Out of curiosity, which conclusion is particular are you talking about? Let's be specific—the strawmen have received enough beating today already.
- StavrosK 8y ago
  It doesn't matter, though. The way your brain is wired, if you read one article denying climate change for every article you read that warns about it, your brain will consider the two hypotheses about equally likely, and you'll probably believe the more comforting one. That way, it doesn't matter that there's a shitload of significant evidence to one and only circumstantial evidence to the other. Your brain just goes by volume.
  - ahmedalsudani 8y ago
    You are absolutely correct. However, it’s still important to vocally disagree with opinions that dismiss the impact of climate change. It could prevent observers from falling into the trap of thinking those old and tired red herrings lead to some undiscovered path that the rest of us have missed.
    - StavrosK 8y ago
      Oh yes, certainly.
  - Radim 8y ago
    Accusing Dyson, of all people, of "believing comforting hypotheses"… And why jump to the strawman of "denying climate change" right away? Did you actually watch the interview? You might be feeling righteous zeal, but ideological lenses don't do people any good in the long run. That is exactly Dyson's point.
- dingo_bat 8y ago
  By reading his Wikipedia page, I felt that he would be able to form an informed opinion on the matter. Why do you think he is "supremely unqualified"?
  - AdeptusAquinas 8y ago
    Exact quote from his Wikipedia page: "m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have". Sounds unqualified to me. Knowing the technical facts seems like it would be important.
- vanattab 8y ago
  Really how is he supremely unqualified for stating his opinion on this? He is a fucking legendary physicist and when compared to the guy who is quoted in this article he has way more credibility. The article takes pains to refer to Mayer Hillman as a "social scientist" but he is not even that kinda of "scientist" he has a degree in Architecture and has worked as a city planner. He has never worked as a scientist in his life. Look I think climate change is a real issue that needs addressed but we can't let these so called "social scientists" spew bullshit and then wonder why people are losing trust in real science.
  - 7952 8y ago
    Climate change policy is a political and moral issue, not a scientific matter. Science can certainly inform that debate, but it cannot give an objective answer to what we should actually do. The world is more complicated than a simple lab experiment where you can control the variables. Social scientists are eminantly qualified to advise in those kind of situations.
    - zaarn 8y ago
      It can certainly give us what we should actually do. Reduce all carbon emissions to zero, effective immediately, to minimize the damage caused by the feedback loop we started here. The policy we implement will of course weigh in the various problems with that approach and delay the zero emissions goal.
    - gepi79 8y ago
      Man made climate change might have been a scientific issue 50 years ago but science has been clear for several decades and politicians should have reacted very differently. Only science can give an objective answer about what we can and should do. Politicians should inform people about the scientific facts and not waste time and money with insane debates of the facts and too optimistic targets.

by Radim 8y ago

ahmedalsudani 8y ago

One who is supremely unqualified for commenting on this topic and an outlier within the mass of scientists.

Radim 8y ago
Science is about seeking the truth, not "mass" numbers. I'll take a well-informed, nuanced opinion of Dyson, a colleague of Einstein and Feynman, over "The outcome is death, and it’s the end of most life on the planet" (actual quote! the hubris) social scientist any day of the week. I realize this is an emotional, politically charged topic. It's unlikely anyone's changing their mind, one way or another.
- StavrosK 8y ago
  > Science is about seeking the truth, not "mass" numbers. Oh yes, how convenient that this argument is used to basically say "scientific consensus is wrong, science goes by truth, not by consensus". How odd that scientific consensus always seems to converge around the truth. > I'll take a well-informed colleague of Einstein and Feynman over "The outcome is death, and it’s the end of most life on the planet" (actual quote! the hubris) social scientist any day of the week. And all those colleagues say the situation is dire.
  - catawbasam 8y ago
    The consensus per ipcc is that agw is very unlikely to lead to human extinction.
    - StavrosK 8y ago
      That doesn't mean it's fun.
      - rbanffy 8y ago
        Or that more than a couple million could possibly survive and repopulate the Earth.
        AstralStorm 8y ago
        This is banking on the assumption that ocean ecosystems will adapt to vastly acidified and warmer waters... (Or that we will help them via introducing GM species.) Later effects would be acidified soil. In large enough amounts, the results look like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Triangle_(region) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Triangle_(region)
        rbanffy 8y ago
        Again, we are talking about human extinction. The stakes are pretty high and I'm sure at least one group would set aside the resources to preserve a minimum viable number of humans (and a lot of fertilized eggs) along with enough environment to sustain them long enough. Extinction implies all humans will die. That's very unlikely, even if the planet takes a very significant hit.
- ahmedalsudani 8y ago
  > I'll take a well-informed, nuanced opinion of Dyson, a colleague of Einstein and Feynman ... I'm sorry, but being a colleague of Einstein and Feynman is not a qualification. Einstein famously rejected quantum mechanics because he felt that God would not create a world where it can be true. Feynman (a personal hero of mine) did not brush his teeth because he thought there was not sufficient scientific evidence that it helps keep them healthy. History is full of brilliant people who make mistakes. Freeman Dyson has not done sufficient research to reach the conclusion that he has, and he certainly hasn't gone back to look at how the predictions have panned out (both from the climate change camp and other one). He is a charlatan when it comes to climate science. It is not wise to worship any single person and accept their claims uncritically, and an appeal to an authority is usually a weak argument.
  - Radim 8y ago
    I agree with most of what you said. (with the caveat that unless you're an expert yourself, common sense and appeal to authority are about all you have) > Freeman Dyson has not done sufficient research to reach the conclusion that he has Out of curiosity, which conclusion is particular are you talking about? Let's be specific—the strawmen have received enough beating today already.
StavrosK 8y ago
It doesn't matter, though. The way your brain is wired, if you read one article denying climate change for every article you read that warns about it, your brain will consider the two hypotheses about equally likely, and you'll probably believe the more comforting one. That way, it doesn't matter that there's a shitload of significant evidence to one and only circumstantial evidence to the other. Your brain just goes by volume.
- ahmedalsudani 8y ago
  You are absolutely correct. However, it’s still important to vocally disagree with opinions that dismiss the impact of climate change. It could prevent observers from falling into the trap of thinking those old and tired red herrings lead to some undiscovered path that the rest of us have missed.
  - StavrosK 8y ago
    Oh yes, certainly.
- Radim 8y ago
  Accusing Dyson, of all people, of "believing comforting hypotheses"… And why jump to the strawman of "denying climate change" right away? Did you actually watch the interview? You might be feeling righteous zeal, but ideological lenses don't do people any good in the long run. That is exactly Dyson's point.
dingo_bat 8y ago
By reading his Wikipedia page, I felt that he would be able to form an informed opinion on the matter. Why do you think he is "supremely unqualified"?
- AdeptusAquinas 8y ago
  Exact quote from his Wikipedia page: "m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have". Sounds unqualified to me. Knowing the technical facts seems like it would be important.
vanattab 8y ago
Really how is he supremely unqualified for stating his opinion on this? He is a fucking legendary physicist and when compared to the guy who is quoted in this article he has way more credibility. The article takes pains to refer to Mayer Hillman as a "social scientist" but he is not even that kinda of "scientist" he has a degree in Architecture and has worked as a city planner. He has never worked as a scientist in his life. Look I think climate change is a real issue that needs addressed but we can't let these so called "social scientists" spew bullshit and then wonder why people are losing trust in real science.
- 7952 8y ago
  Climate change policy is a political and moral issue, not a scientific matter. Science can certainly inform that debate, but it cannot give an objective answer to what we should actually do. The world is more complicated than a simple lab experiment where you can control the variables. Social scientists are eminantly qualified to advise in those kind of situations.
  - zaarn 8y ago
    It can certainly give us what we should actually do. Reduce all carbon emissions to zero, effective immediately, to minimize the damage caused by the feedback loop we started here. The policy we implement will of course weigh in the various problems with that approach and delay the zero emissions goal.
  - gepi79 8y ago
    Man made climate change might have been a scientific issue 50 years ago but science has been clear for several decades and politicians should have reacted very differently. Only science can give an objective answer about what we can and should do. Politicians should inform people about the scientific facts and not waste time and money with insane debates of the facts and too optimistic targets.