5 ms·

Freeman Dyson is a skeptic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k69HUuyI5Mk h

by TriinT 17y ago

Freeman Dyson is a skeptic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k69HUuyI5Mk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k69HUuyI5Mk Do you have the audacity to call him a conspiracy theorist? He's only one of the greatest scientists of the 20th Century. What kind of track record do you have to belittle Dyson? Seriously. The point I am trying to make: not at skeptics are born equal. Some are ignorant fools. But others are well-educated and well-trained in the Natural Sciences. Your simplistic view that all skeptics are conspiracy theorists is ideology. You looked at no data. You did not check the assumptions. You did not create any of the climate computer models. You probably did not read any papers on the topic. So, your beliefs stem from where exactly!? This is not an attack. It is an honest question. BTW, they don't call it Global Warming anymore. It's now called Climate Change. You see, since the climate is a dynamical system that is continuously changing, the name "Climate Change" per se has absolutely zero information.

mighty 17y ago
> BTW, they don't call it Global Warming anymore. It's now called Climate Change. You see, since the climate is a dynamical system that is continuously changing, the name "Climate Change" per se has absolutely zero information. It only has zero information if you give it a massively uncharitable and ignorant reading. A climate per se describes a long term pattern of weather in a region. If that pattern changes, by definition, the climate has changed. Hence, "climate change". Systems, or "dynamical systems" (whatever that means), are privy to two levels of change: one occurs within the system, the other defines the system. In other words, a system's state may change to another state, or the system may change into another system. Got it?
- TriinT 17y ago
  For starters, I don't like your tone. This is HN, not reddit. Got it? I stand by my assertion. "Climate Change" is a redundancy. The climate has always been changing. If you reduce the entire complexity of the global climate system to 1 bit, you're not doing any good Science. It's not whether it's changing or not, it's how it is changing. This makes a world of difference. The laws of Physics haven't changed. What may change is the inputs: solar radiation, C02 and methane emissions from the biosphere, C02 emissions by humans, etc. Since we don't really know the inputs with good precision, and since we can't measure them reliably either, jumping to conclusions based on computer models is ludicrous. The problem with computer models is that we lack sufficient knowledge on the initial conditions. We would need a whole lot more measurements to be able to come up with reliable computer simulations. Unfortunately, measuring is expensive, while simulating is cheap. Trying to solve the fluid and heat dynamics PDEs on a global scale with incomplete info on initial conditions is not Science, it's voodoo magic. I repeat: the rules of the game haven't changed. The laws of Physics are still the same. Focus on measuring the inputs that drive the dynamical system, rather than make apocalyptical predictions based on bad computer models.
JeremyBanks 17y ago
Appeal to authority. Please try again, I'm curious.
- TriinT 17y ago
  It's not an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to good ideas. Dyson's points are valid. If you dismiss them without even thinking deeply about them, you're pretty much doing what the Inquisition did to Galileo. Moreover, Dyson's points are based on good Science. He focuses on measurements and data, which are hard evidence. Dyson does not appeal to emotion or fear.
  - codahale 17y ago
    You said "Do you have the audacity to call him a conspiracy theorist? He's only one of the greatest scientists of the 20th Century. What kind of track record do you have to belittle Dyson?" That is an explicit appeal to authority.
    - TriinT 17y ago
      Fair enough. You have a point. But then, only in a fantasy world do people not appeal to authority. Someone who has a track record is always more reliable than someone who lacks it. And, to be honest, this is a good thing.
Alex3917 17y ago
From the video you linked to: "The public thinks you have to wait until global warming is proved before you do something, but that's completely ridiculous." The only thing from this video that suggests Dyson is a skeptic is the title.
- TriinT 17y ago
  You missed the point. This article explains things in greater detail: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

by TriinT 17y ago

mighty 17y ago

> BTW, they don't call it Global Warming anymore. It's now called Climate Change. You see, since the climate is a dynamical system that is continuously changing, the name "Climate Change" per se has absolutely zero information. It only has zero information if you give it a massively uncharitable and ignorant reading. A climate per se describes a long term pattern of weather in a region. If that pattern changes, by definition, the climate has changed. Hence, "climate change". Systems, or "dynamical systems" (whatever that means), are privy to two levels of change: one occurs within the system, the other defines the system. In other words, a system's state may change to another state, or the system may change into another system. Got it?

TriinT 17y ago
For starters, I don't like your tone. This is HN, not reddit. Got it? I stand by my assertion. "Climate Change" is a redundancy. The climate has always been changing. If you reduce the entire complexity of the global climate system to 1 bit, you're not doing any good Science. It's not whether it's changing or not, it's how it is changing. This makes a world of difference. The laws of Physics haven't changed. What may change is the inputs: solar radiation, C02 and methane emissions from the biosphere, C02 emissions by humans, etc. Since we don't really know the inputs with good precision, and since we can't measure them reliably either, jumping to conclusions based on computer models is ludicrous. The problem with computer models is that we lack sufficient knowledge on the initial conditions. We would need a whole lot more measurements to be able to come up with reliable computer simulations. Unfortunately, measuring is expensive, while simulating is cheap. Trying to solve the fluid and heat dynamics PDEs on a global scale with incomplete info on initial conditions is not Science, it's voodoo magic. I repeat: the rules of the game haven't changed. The laws of Physics are still the same. Focus on measuring the inputs that drive the dynamical system, rather than make apocalyptical predictions based on bad computer models.

JeremyBanks 17y ago

Appeal to authority. Please try again, I'm curious.

TriinT 17y ago
It's not an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to good ideas. Dyson's points are valid. If you dismiss them without even thinking deeply about them, you're pretty much doing what the Inquisition did to Galileo. Moreover, Dyson's points are based on good Science. He focuses on measurements and data, which are hard evidence. Dyson does not appeal to emotion or fear.
- codahale 17y ago
  You said "Do you have the audacity to call him a conspiracy theorist? He's only one of the greatest scientists of the 20th Century. What kind of track record do you have to belittle Dyson?" That is an explicit appeal to authority.
  - TriinT 17y ago
    Fair enough. You have a point. But then, only in a fantasy world do people not appeal to authority. Someone who has a track record is always more reliable than someone who lacks it. And, to be honest, this is a good thing.

Alex3917 17y ago

From the video you linked to: "The public thinks you have to wait until global warming is proved before you do something, but that's completely ridiculous." The only thing from this video that suggests Dyson is a skeptic is the title.

TriinT 17y ago
You missed the point. This article explains things in greater detail: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]