A science contrarian is fine, throwing out a thousand ideas, most of them wrong, and maybe a couple will turn out well.
Science policy only allows you to choose one framework at a time. So do you choose the mainstream consensus, that action is needed, or do you choose the often-wrong contrarian position and do nothing, like the Bush Administration of the last 8 years?
It's an even easier choice when you realize that Dyson isn't even talking about his field of expertise.
And for the record, AGW theory is a century old and doesn't rely on computer models, it long predates them. See Arrhenius. The four primary bases of AGW are the theory, the instrumental record, magnified warming in the Arctic, and computer modelling. There's other evidentiary support too like stratospheric cooling and increased precip in the Antarctic.
Space/Science » in reply to NYT Profile of Freeman Dyson
Science contrarian v. science policy contrarian
The whole thread (28 posts)
- NYT Profile of Freeman Dyson