Here's a great read: a NYT Magazine profile of the theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson, a widely respected grey eminence in the world of science who has cheesed off many folks with his skepticism of global warming orthodoxy. Excerpt:
FOR MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY the eminent physicist Freeman Dyson has quietly resided in Princeton, N.J., on the wooded former farmland that is home to his employer, the Institute for Advanced Study, this country's most rarefied community of scholars. Lately, however, since coming "out of the closet as far as global warming is concerned," as Dyson sometimes puts it, there has been noise all around him. Chat rooms, Web threads, editors' letter boxes and Dyson's own e-mail queue resonate with a thermal current of invective in which Dyson has discovered himself variously described as "a pompous twit," "a blowhard," "a cesspool of misinformation," "an old coot riding into the sunset" and, perhaps inevitably, "a mad scientist." Dyson had proposed that whatever inflammations the climate was experiencing might be a good thing because carbon dioxide helps plants of all kinds grow. Then he added the caveat that if CO2 levels soared too high, they could be soothed by the mass cultivation of specially bred "carbon-eating trees," whereupon the University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner looked through the thick grove of honorary degrees Dyson has been awarded -- there are 21 from universities like Georgetown, Princeton and Oxford -- and suggested that "perhaps trees can also be designed so that they can give directions to lost hikers." Dyson's son, George, a technology historian, says his father's views have cooled friendships, while many others have concluded that time has cost Dyson something else. There is the suspicion that, at age 85, a great scientist of the 20th century is no longer just far out, he is far gone -- out of his beautiful mind.
But in the considered opinion of the neurologist Oliver Sacks, Dyson's friend and fellow English expatriate, this is far from the case. "His mind is still so open and flexible," Sacks says. Which makes Dyson something far more formidable than just the latest peevish right-wing climate-change denier. Dyson is a scientist whose intelligence is revered by other scientists -- William Press, former deputy director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and now a professor of computer science at the University of Texas, calls him "infinitely smart." Dyson -- a mathematics prodigy who came to this country at 23 and right away contributed seminal work to physics by unifying quantum and electrodynamic theory -- not only did path-breaking science of his own; he also witnessed the development of modern physics, thinking alongside most of the luminous figures of the age, including Einstein, Richard Feynman, Niels Bohr, Enrico Fermi, Hans Bethe, Edward Teller, J. Robert Oppenheimer and Edward Witten, the "high priest of string theory" whose office at the institute is just across the hall from Dyson's. Yet instead of hewing to that fundamental field, Dyson chose to pursue broader and more unusual pursuits than most physicists -- and has lived a more original life.
I look forward to reading the discussion thread over the weekend. Please keep this discussion at the level of ideas, not insult.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
When it comes to predicting the weather, who ya gonna believe?
1) The TV Weather Guy
B) Al Gore
3rd) Some guy in a lab coat filling out his grant request
Last) Your lying eyes
"Well, Dyson is a smarter guy than I am, so I'm inclined to believe him when he suggests that if we had to, we could genetically engineer our way out of CO2 increases by capturing the excess in modified trees."
Don't even go there. On matters biological he's a pure pie-in-the-sky futurologist. You may as well flip a coin for the correct guess of what will be available in the future.
Besides, trees probably aren't the best CO2 sink. The oceans are.
He is correct that the global CO2 cycle involves much more CO2 than humans release but it's clear that we have shifted the concentrations signficantly higher. Most of our activities seem to have decreased the fixation rates and a reversal would require significant effort.
"Low-tech cyclist":
You argue we ought not to take Mr. Dyson seriously on the issue of – what is it now…"global warming" or "climate change"? – because he's somehow out of his field. I'm wondering how you square up the fact that you no doubt put great credibility in anything Mr. Gore says on the issue. He's your "movement's" mouth piece. Mr. Gore's academic record reflects mediocre grades in non-science areas (never mind his political record), but Mr. Dyson is somehow inadequate and his learned opinion should be ignored. That doesn’t add up.!
Funny, Mr. Gore HAS published something on the issue ("An Inconvenient Truth" among others), which has been shown to be strewn with errors and maybe even outright falsehoods.
Another “inconvenient truth” is that all of you in “Camp Hysteria” as recent as the 1970s were dead CERTAIN we were headed into another ice age. See link to an article published June 24, 1974: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html. Given Time’s political orientation, I’m surprised they’ve not pulled this article down so nobody can see it. Michael Moore accuses the “right” of always trying to scare the public, but it seems to me that “Camp Hysteria,” liberals in general and the liberal press have a monopoly when it comes to hysteria and scaring the public.
Prof. Dyson has been quoted as doubting the validity of climate models (vastly complex computer programs) ON THE GROUND THAT these models do not track chemistry and biology as they ought.
I would like to see his specific complaints about the modeling cogently answered by proponents of GW. I am happy to exclude the anti-GW amateurs, but a scientist of repute should be honored with a careful reply.
From the enormous scientific agreement on GW, I expect his caveats will be held to be groundless. But I'd like to read the discussion.
I like this mans view on religion, celebrating its value so to speak as a touch-stone for people to humbly connect. I like that he can disapprove of Dawkins esp since Darwin faced down the lions charge of ignorant dogmatism. What it takes to be a man is to suck it up and say it how you see it fits. Its fine for some to specialise so acutely but you need those who with the charactor, dicipline and interest to represent what they see as way toward the truth after they have rifled through and thought. It takes humble and wise consideration to enchant new ideas and at least in the socratic sense he has reached an age to teach. A scientist in an honorable sense values truth and not construction. He is brazen in his faith in the advance of science and I am sure he looks for the theory without paradox. I am sure he is the sort of bloke that would be happy that a truth be found and would enjoy the dance with ideas in consequence.
If I could email the old bugger I would suggest he got hold of a copy of "Escape of the Ufsapog "Ideas about Evolution""for his bedtime reading by David Taylor. Just another geriatric in the socratic sense who describes himself as the reader writing back. David touches on that sense of nagging in the back of our mind when there is truth to be sought out and his is a herculean effort of comprehension and superb logic. David stands there with an empty sling the kernel of truth has been flung; Goliath hasn't seen it comming. It will be a blow to bombastics like Dawkins but not on his religious views but rather on the scientific side which will be more unexpected...and hurt a bit maybe like a bunged up achilles heel.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.