Freeman Dyson speaks out about climate science, and fudge
“I just think they don't understand the climate, their computer models are full of fudge factors.”
This is what the great Physicist Freeman Dyson had to say about the Climatologists who promote man-made global warming as a crisis. He is one of my heroes.
My friend Anthony Watts reproduced excerpts from an article about Dyson by Paul Mulshine in the New Jersey Star-Ledger. Here is that post from the Watts Up With That website:
Freeman Dyson is a physicist who has been teaching at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton since Albert Einstein was there. When Einstein died in 1955, there was an opening for the title of “most brilliant physicist on the planet.” Dyson has filled it.
So when the global-warming movement came along, a lot of people wondered why he didn't come along with it. The reason he's a skeptic is simple, the 89-year-old Dyson said when I phoned him.
“I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic,” Dyson said.…
Then in the late 1970s, he got involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tenn.
That research, which involved scientists from many disciplines, was based on experimentation. The scientists studied such questions as how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with plant life and the role of clouds in warming.
But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.
“I just think they don't understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”
A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.
“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don't represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”
Dyson said his skepticism about those computer models was borne out by recent reports of a study by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading in Great Britain that showed global temperatures were flat between 2000 and 2010 – even though we humans poured record amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere during that decade.
That was vindication for a man who was termed “a civil heretic” in a New York Times Magazine article on his contrarian views. Dyson embraces that label, with its implication that what he opposes is a religious movement. So does his fellow Princeton physicist and fellow skeptic, William Happer.
“There are people who just need a cause that's bigger than themselves,” said Happer. “Then they can feel virtuous and say other people are not virtuous.”
To show how uncivil this crowd can get, Happer e-mailed me an article about an Australian professor who proposes – quite seriously – the death penalty for heretics such as Dyson. As did Galileo, they can get a reprieve if they recant.
I hope that guy never gets to hear Dyson's most heretical assertion: Atmospheric CO2 may actually be improving the environment.
“It's certainly true that carbon dioxide is good for vegetation,” Dyson said. “About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO2 we put in the atmosphere. From that point of view, it's a real plus to burn coal and oil.”
In fact, there's more solid evidence for the beneficial effects of CO2 than the negative effects, he said. So why does the public hear only one side of this debate? Because the media do an awful job of reporting it.
“They're absolutely lousy,” he said of American journalists. “That's true also in Europe. I don't know why they've been brainwashed.”
I know why: They're lazy. Instead of digging into the details, most journalists are content to repeat that mantra about “consensus” among climate scientists.
The problem, said Dyson, is that the consensus is based on those computer models. Computers are great for analyzing what happened in the past, he said, but not so good at figuring out what will happen in the future. But a lot of scientists have built their careers on them. Hence the hatred for dissenters.
After reading this article I felt compelled to enter a comment on the website. Here is what I had to say:
Dr. Dyson is a hero of mine. However, his media comment calls for some input from a man who has been in the television news media for 60 years.
At it's peak during the 70′s through the 90′s the TV media was not lazy. There were some solid science reporters. However, the Management above them was all most universally politically liberal motivated in all judgements. Global Warming came to the media via Al Gore and that was the “ballgame”. Whatever this leading liberal said was taken as absolute and any efforts by science reporters to balance coverage were rejected.
As TV began to decline in 2000 and after, science reporters were among the first to be eliminated. The liberal bias, for the most part, continued and their were no people and no money to explore scientific issues. In the meantime the Al Gore position had been accepted by all important scientific organizations and the Federal research dollars were producing a steady stream of pro Global Warming papers. The “lazy” and biased media accepted them without any doubt in their correctness.
In this internet and smart phone dominated time, the lazy and biased media is losing its power. Now a more balanced presentation of the issues is available thanks to WUWT and other fine internet blog sites. The special presentations are there on You Tube as well. A new survey has found that 37% of Americans are now skeptical of Global Warming. There is hope. We skeptics need to continue to make our case as professionally and in as scientifically sound manner as we can.
Dr Dyson, we old men should not give up.
There are dozens of other comments on the Watts Up With That website here.
I should conclude by acknowledging that a mainstream media writer for a respected news website did put the excellent global warming skeptics story in print. So there is hope for the mainstream media by the very existence of this article. Yeah!