Freeman Dyson

“I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic”
Freeman Dyson

Freeman Dyson est un des plus grands scientifiques de notre ère. Il est dans la lignée de Einstein, qu’il a cotoyé à Princeton university.

Je me rappelle entre autres son idée de « Dyson Sphere » dans mes lectures (et dans un épisode de Star Trek)

Wikipedia semble dire qu’il est un réchauffiste:
Mais rappelez-vous le scandale de manipulation des données de Wikipedia par un administrateur réchauffiste:

Donc pour ce qui est du climat, Wikipédia ne peut pas être considéré comme une source fiable.

Les entrevues que Freeman Dyson donne semblent indiquer le contraire de ce qui est écrit sur Wikipedia.

“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”

“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.

[about atmospheric CO2]“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.

In the history of science it has often happened that the majority was wrong and refused to listen to a minority that later turned out to be right. [article by, 2008]

Climate change is part of the normal order of things, and we know it was happening before humans came. [interview with, 2007]

Just because you see pictures of glaciers falling into the ocean doesn’t mean anything bad is happening. This is something that happens all the time. It’s part of the natural cycle of things. [interview with, 2007]

There is no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer, but the warming is not global. [essay by, 2007]

The idea that global warming is the most important problem facing the world is total nonsense and is doing a lot of harm. It distracts people’s attention from much more serious problems. [interview with, 2007]

When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories. [essay by, 2007]

We do not know how much of the environmental change is due to human activities and how much [is due] to long-term natural processes over which we have no control. [essay by, 2007]

« It makes very little sense to believe the output of the climate models. »


5 Responses to Freeman Dyson

  1. Bobjack dit :

    Bon j’admet que je savais déjà pour Freeman Dyson, mais merci pour la référence à Star Trek, un de mes épisodes préférés.

  2. Marc B dit :

    Bonjour Monsieur Rioux
    moi aussi je n en peux plus de la campagne de peur des réchaufistes mais j aimerais votre avis sur cette article que j ai lus dans le journal de montreal du 10 mai 2013

    j avoue quand lisant ca je ne savais quoi dire

  3. Gilles Laplante dit :

    Wikipedia ne sera jamais une source fiable. On y trouve du pire et du meilleur. Par contre, ça permet d’aiguiller des recherches plus sérieuses.

%d blogueurs aiment cette page :