Hacker News Reader

Comment by melling | Hacker News Reader

Started writing "later” in life:

“Life begins at 55, the age at which I published my first book,” he wrote in “From Eros to Gaia,”

Never got his PhD. Taught physics at Cornell.

Thoughts on climate change:

"Relishing the role of iconoclast, he confounded the scientific establishment by dismissing the consensus about the perils of man-made climate change as “tribal group-thinking.” He doubted the veracity of the climate models, and he exasperated experts with sanguine predictions they found rooted less in science than in wishfulness: Excess carbon in the air is good for plants, and global warming might forestall another ice age."

Lots worth reading in the NYT obituary.

View on HN

I think Dyson was misunderstood in his criticism of climate science - he admitted that he didn't study the science itself, but he was concerned about how the scientific culture in the field seemed to be working

From his quotes, it sounds like he had a pretty strong opinion on climate science, and wasn't commenting merely on "cultural" topics.

> Indur Goklany has done a careful job, collecting and documenting the evidence that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does far more good than harm. To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.

I consider myself an unprejudiced person and to me these facts are obvious. But the same facts are not obvious to the majority of scientists and politicians who consider carbon dioxide to be evil and dangerous. The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence... I hope that a few of them will make the effort to examine the evidence in detail and see how it contradicts the prevailing dogma, but I know that the majority will remain blind... How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/10/benefits1.pdf

What I appreciated about Dyson's view of climate change is that he doesn't jump to the conclusion that change is bad and should be feared. I'm not myself saying it is good, but it was the point I appreciated most in his view.

When I read articles about species dying, ice melting, etc, I think to myself "what would it be like to travel to and live on that strange new world, with less ice, different species, wild weather?"

At the same time I've converted pasture into hedgerow and I plan to bury the wood in trenches.

I also appreciate the ability of alt-righters to the question the status quo; but I am unquestionably sure about the lack of their intelligence (which is usually the same thing that feeds their confidence).

>> Excess carbon in the air is good for plants, and global warming might forestall another ice age.

How is it not "rooted in science" that excess carbon is good for plants? We're already seeing significant global greening, and yields are up. Excess CO2 also reduces the amount of water the plants need.

It's akin to saying "Why is everyone concerned about this Volcano erupting? Plants will flourish in the resulting rich, volcanic soil"

The statement is completely true, but it misses the point as to why people are concerned and glosses over a lot of negatives.

The Goklany report that Dyson was discussing deascribes the evidence for many of the potential negatives. I don't vouch for the quality of the report one way or the other but I just skim-read it and it addresses the potential costs of increased CO2 directly.

edit: the report has 18 pages on the benefits and 12 pages on the costs of elevated CO2.

I interpret his point being less about denying that some people will be harmed by global warming but that most (or 'all') people will be.

I agree with what I think Dyson believed: that it's NOT obvious that global warming is net-negative (long term).

Another ice age would be pretty terrible too.

Global warming is a net negative for all people if the rate of change exceeds the rate at which we can adapt our society. That shows up in our economy as a cost, and when costs exceed revenue, society runs into trouble regardless of whether the atmosphere is 15% more conducive to plant growth.

The most obvious cost is the threat to densely populated real estate along coasts as sea level rises. You have to build sea walls or move. Building walls is a huge direct cost. But forced moving creates huge indirect costs as the price of real estate above the new waterline soars--at the same the people with land under the waterline all file flood insurance claims (or go bankrupt).

Freeman Dyson was a brilliant physical scientist, but the problems of global warming will be primarily social, not physical.

How much would you spend (or spend to convince the government to spend) to keep your billions-of-dollars-worth-of-real-estate viable?

Building sea walls is a trivial cost compared to moving (and giving up the real estate to the sea). Ask the Netherlands - 26% of the country is below sea level - up to (or down to) 6.7m below.

The Deltaworks project did not have a trivial cost, and the Ministry of Water in the Netherlands is deeply concerned about how we will mitigate further sea level and river level rises.

"Altogether the Delta Works cost nearly 5 billion Euros." http://www.deltawerken.com/The-Delta-Works/1524.html

"The South Holland coast region is home to approximately 4 million people who live below normal sea level" https://www.ice.org.uk/what-is-civil-engineering/what-do-civ...

Roughly 1300 Euros per person protected. How much would it cost to move those people? And what is the total value of the real estate where they live/work/farm?

So yes, "Building sea walls is a trivial cost compared to moving (and giving up the real estate to the sea)."

Moving a city over a number of decades is more of an inconvenience than a disaster. You would tear down most buildings every 50 years anyway.

Some of the disaster scenarios seem to assume people would just stay as the water rose, until they all drowned, shortest people first.

> Another ice age would be pretty terrible too.

OK, but the next rational step would be to ask which scenario is presenting the greater risk. Just raising an issue without following through is not helpful, and, I am sorry to say, that is what Dyson tended to do on this issue.

He's gone, so this isn't really the place for this discussion at all.

However, I'm glad this is mentioned and how it shows that there are a lot of intelligent people who have concerns with the current science debate. Consensus isn't science, it's politics, and challenging ones ideas is how we both reinforce the truth as well as dispel myths.

He was a genius and an inspiration for many people, why can't we just admit that he was wrong in one accessory domain (relative to his work and legacy) and not turn him into a romantic Don Quixote fighting against the "bad politics-based consensus" of climate change?

There is a prize winning physicist in my area who was arrested for starting a major brush fire. He plugged multiple extension cords together to power an electric fence and the overheating of the cords started the fire. Intelligence does not apply to every possible topic. Trusting the consensus of people trained in an area is always better than discounting that consensus because someone with little to no expertise on the subject challenges their ideas.

> Trusting the consensus of people trained in an area is always better

That's what they said when Galileo Galilei was on trial for not trusting the "consensus" about geocentric view of the world.

To use a more recent example, that's what they said of Dr. Barry Marshall who discovered that it was Heliobacter Pylori, and not "stress" that's causing ulcers in the stomach. Dude was very nearly laughed out of his field, to the point where he had to take the unconventional step of infecting himself with h. pylori to prove the point, and then curing himself of it with antibiotics.

In a politicized field especially, it can very easily cost one their scientific career if they "disagree with consensus" if one is less prominent than Dyson, whereas "agreeing with consensus" is strongly beneficial.

Galileo didn't get into trouble because of a general consensus, he got into trouble because he made fun of the Pope. It was straight up authoritarianism that put him on trial, not his scientific position.

I think you'll find those people were actually trained in their respective fields and not fielding essentially uneducated opinions, however.

Why isn't this an appropriate venue for this discussion? It seems perfectly germane.

Agree. Can't imagine Freeman himself having any problems with his stance on the issue being discussed now (or at any other time).

> Consensus isn't science, it's politics,

What?

Amen

It's just annoying that some snooty reporter is trying to shit on this great man's legacy by speaking of things they do not understand.

The situation is more complex than that. Plants with accelerated metabolism and growth from increased CO2 burn through minerals and other nutrients so fast that they experience a kind of crash that leaves them stunted and vulnerable.

> Never got his PhD

"Freeman Dyson, renowned physicist and educator, today (May 17) received an honorary doctor of science degree at Clarkson University"

An honorary doctorate doesn't mean anything. If it did, no one would bother trying to earn the real thing.

One could be officially called Dr. after getting honorary degree

Not generally, no. Richard Stallman titles himself "Dr", which upsets many people. More details and subtleties here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_degree

Sure, but it still doesn't mean anything.

I was able to see him speak recently in San Diego, he will be missed!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com