Comments on: The New Andrew Revkin Fan UPDATED

By: Susan Anderson

Susan Anderson — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 00:31:24 +0000

I wasn’t talking about Dyson’s publications. I was talking about the quote in #111 and Tobis’s “get” in 188. Dyson’s “science” is way above my head and I believe he honestly thinks he’s right (it’s an open question whether lies or delusion are worse for us; the combination is pretty lethal).

By: Brainstorms

Brainstorms — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 16:47:44 +0000

Susan, I’m obviously not familiar with Dyson’s publications, having read very little of it. However, I’m ever more inspired to avoid wasting my time doing so.

“Prevarication” would put him squarely in the camp of other intentionally misleading anti-science fiends so often referred to here, which is fine by me. It is disappointing, though, to think that Dyson was educated to be an honest scientist (through his own motivation & interest), yet went over to the Dark Side at some point. (Apparently much earlier than I was aware of.)

By: Susan Anderson

Susan Anderson — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:23:21 +0000

Brainstorms, please go back over the material about Freeman Dyson. It’s not so much about age as about the other things mentioned, and never mind the charity; as you point out, the time for prevarication should have been over a few decades ago. One example is his idea in the earlier days about powering early space flights with the equivalent of nuclear bombs over Florida. A faith in one’s own ideas to the exclusion of other considerations is not an asset.

By: Brainstorms

Brainstorms — Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:29:53 +0000

“Won’t be long now before it’s so obvious nobody can ignore it.” Which, unfortunately, equates to the point where nobody can do anything to mitigate it.

If “we literally cannot imagine making the necessary changes”, then we will be relieved from having to imagine the consequences that follow, for they will be made real for us to experience. (I myself prefer to have only the imagining option available.)

Avoiding “loss of faith in the fundamental order of the universe” will lead to losing the fundamental order of our small part of it. And that’s not going to be a matter of faith, but a matter of “touch and believe”.

Scientists should not cherish detachment to the point where they become detached from reality. F.D. seems to have crossed that point. I’ll be charitable and ponder the probability that it’s due to commonplace age-related cerebral vascular mishaps.

By: Susan Anderson

Susan Anderson — Fri, 10 Jul 2015 18:20:52 +0000

dhogaza, you are wasting your pixels. Most people don’t understand that physics includes a lot of specialties (like most subjects), and physics is not the be-all and end-all of understanding. (ps. I rather like Tom Fuller, he just needs to open his mind a little wider. He’s doing his best according to his lights, just missing the critical problem with business as usual. Won’t be long now before it’s so obvious nobody can ignore it.)

Perhaps the best analogy would be the panoply of medical specialists vs. GPs. In later life, we need quite a range.

Suggesting that weather is part of both trends and day-to-day reality is too much for most.

And most of all, they don’t want to face the reality that is biting us all. We all have our tricks and techniques for getting through the day.

Scientists are problem solvers by nature, trained to cherish detachment as a moral ideal. Jeffrey Kiehl was a senior scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research when he became so concerned about the way the brain resists climate science, he took a break and got a psychology degree. Ten years of research later, he’s concluded that consumption and growth have become so central to our sense of personal identity and the fear of economic loss creates such numbing anxiety, we literally cannot imagine making the necessary changes. Worse, accepting the facts threatens us with a loss of faith in the fundamental order of the universe. Climate scientists are different only because they have a professional excuse for detachment, and usually it’s not until they get older that they admit how much it’s affecting them—which is also when they tend to get more outspoken, Kiehl says. “You reach a point where you feel—and that’s the word, not think, feel—’I have to do something.’

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists-0815/

By: dhogaza

dhogaza — Fri, 10 Jul 2015 05:03:39 +0000

Odd that Tommy, a self-declared “lukewarmer”, would embrace an outright denialist like Dyson … methinks Tommy lies about being a “lukewarmer” by any reasonable definition.

By: dhogaza

dhogaza — Fri, 10 Jul 2015 04:54:53 +0000

Tommy:

“Ms. Anderson, if advanced physics isn’t enough to qualify Mr. Dyson as capable of evaluating climate change, perhaps the 15 years he spent working in the field of… climate change might?”

He hasn’t worked in the field (using the standard definition of scientific work being defined by doing research that leads to the publication of scientific papers in scientific journals).

That goes over Tommy’s head, of course.

By: Susan Anderson

Susan Anderson — Thu, 09 Jul 2015 20:05:33 +0000

Since you bring up Dyson, here’s a good one:
http://init.planet3.org/2010/01/guest-posting-expanded-dyson-exegesis.html

and while you’re at it, another gem from comments there:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/306562/pics/traitesureleclimate.jpg

By: Obstreperous Applesauce

Obstreperous Applesauce — Thu, 09 Jul 2015 14:09:47 +0000

@ 186

Depends on what you mean by “the field of… climate change”. Look at where the rubber hits the road:

Peer-reviewed skeptic papers by Freeman Dyson: 0.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php?s=11

By: Thomas Fuller

Thomas Fuller — Thu, 09 Jul 2015 06:57:28 +0000

Ms. Anderson, if advanced physics isn’t enough to qualify Mr. Dyson as capable of evaluating climate change, perhaps the 15 years he spent working in the field of… climate change might?