Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Freeman John Dyson FRS is an English-born American theoretical physicist and mathematician, famous for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering."
To answer your question, climate changes was not his expertise. He is a brilliant man, but it seems like his issues with climate change studies is he doesn't approve of the computer information that scientists are using to calculate their numbers.
Would I attempt to challenge him when it comes to theoretical physics? No. With something that is far outside of his practice....maybe?
I agree with him in that there could be a strong contention given to the lack of complexity given with even the robust climate models working in play, but the problem with that is that it doesn't actually mean that they are wrong. It doesn't mean that there is no climate change, it also doesn't mean definitively that there is. From that point though the normal process isn't to reject all information, its to use what you have at hand. If Dyson were to propose a more complex, robust methodology to creating models then that would be a decent valid argument, but to just say that because one is lacking in complexity means that the opposite of their findings is true is very much so misguided.
On his argument on the life expectancy of fossil fuels, I am thoroughly intrigued. In his scenario we stop all fossil fuel usage in 50 years and then, even if there is damage being done, the damage is only for a limited time and won't be long enough for irreparable harm to occur. I believe that while we are affecting the climate it is not at a Day After Tomorrow type speed where 10 years and we're done for so I see some validity in his supposition.
The problem that I see in it though is:
1) It assumes a low level damage rate without giving reasoning. This is ok when you're just saying yeah, I think this, but not if you're trying to make a valid scientific argument.
2) It assumes that the oil companies will allow a new technology to just wash them away. Maybe something comes in that is revolutionary and immediately makes Oil worthless and takes away the worth and power of those companies, but that's a really big if and they are some pretty powerful companies that have buried more than one type of tech.
3) It assumes that everything will just work out. I like to be an optimist about things as well, but you can't just say ohhhh it will get better because magical technology will occur to cover everyone's asses about it and then say that this is scientific. You can say I hope it does, but that doesn't make an argument.
Me, I think the Singularity hits way before 50 years comes and we all just may be grey goo by then...but hopefully not
I completely agree, because the only refutations don't even rise to the level of being wrong.
Every scientific body agrees that the climate is changing. Those that disagree are just insane.
You don't seem to grasp what you're agreeing with, since I was referring to the climate change claims -- and specifically noted that -- not the refutations. So although I realize you were attempting to emulate what I did, you utterly failed.
You don't seem to grasp what you're agreeing with, since I was referring to the climate change claims -- and specifically noted that -- not the refutations. So although I realize you were attempting to emulate what I did, you utterly failed.
When did you switch sides? Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that "[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas. However, he believes that existing simulation models of climate fail to account for some important factors, and hence the results will contain too much error to reliably predict future trends. Freeman Dyson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Actually, it's funny that you drew that conclusion from my post. I'd be fascinated to see what your thought process was, but I doubt you'd be able to diagram that to anyone.
Uh, probably not, since he's saying that the models being used are incorrect. I'm not sure where you got your info.
I read a transcript from an interview with him. The models that he things are incorrect is because the computer models that create them don't account for things like clouds.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
