Princeton Physicist Freeman Dyson: ‘The possibly harmful climatic effects of CO2 have been greatly exaggerated & the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage’


By: - Climate DepotNovember 16, 2018 3:27 PM

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/11/why-wont-liberals-look-at-the-evidence-on-climate.php

WHY WON’T LIBERALS LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE ON CLIMATE?

This is a theme that Steve and I have recurred to many times on this site. Today it is voiced by Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s most eminent scientists. Dyson, a theoretical physicist and professor emeritus of Mathematical Physics and Astrophysics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, is famous among other things for unifying the three versions of quantum electrodynamics. He has been a harsh critic of the slovenly science practiced by climate alarmists.

Dyson wrote a foreword to a report on the benefits of carbon dioxide by Indur Goklany which is quoted at length in the Science and Environmental Policy Project’s The Week That Was. Here are some excerpts:

To any unprejudiced person reading [Goklany’s] 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. Those of my scientific colleagues who believe the prevailing dogma about carbon dioxide will not find Goklany’s evidence convincing. 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. That is to me the central mystery of climate science. It is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts? In this foreword I offer a tentative solution of the mystery.

There are many examples in the history of science of irrational beliefs promoted by famous thinkers and adopted by loyal disciples. Sometimes, as in the use of bleeding as a treatment for various diseases, irrational belief did harm to a large number of human victims. George Washington was one of the victims. Other irrational beliefs, such as the phlogiston theory of burning or the Aristotelian cosmology of circular celestial motions, only did harm by delaying the careful examination of nature. In all these cases, we see a community of people happily united in a false belief that brought leaders and followers together. Anyone who questioned the prevailing belief would upset the peace of the community.

Real advances in science require a different cultural tradition, with individuals who invent new tools to explore nature and are not afraid to question authority. Science driven by rebels and heretics searching for truth has made great progress in the last three centuries. But the new culture of scientific scepticism is a recent growth and has not yet penetrated deeply into our thinking. The old culture of group loyalty and dogmatic belief is still alive under the surface, guiding the thoughts of scientists as well as the opinions of ordinary citizens.

To understand human behavior, I look at human evolution. About a hundred thousand years ago, our species invented a new kind of evolution. In addition to biological evolution based on genetic changes, we began a cultural evolution based on social and intellectual changes. Biological evolution did not stop, but cultural evolution was much faster and quickly became dominant. Social customs and beliefs change and spread much more rapidly than genes.

Cultural evolution was enabled by spoken languages and tribal loyalties. Tribe competed with tribe and culture with culture. The cultures that prevailed were those that promoted tribal cohesion. Humans were always social animals, and culture made us even more social. We evolved to feel at home in a group that thinks alike. It was more important for a group of humans to be united than to be right. It was always dangerous and usually undesirable to question authority. When authority was seriously threatened, heretics were burned at the stake.

I am suggesting that the thinking of politicians and scientists about controversial issues today is still tribal. Science and politics are not essentially different from other aspects of human culture. Science and politics are products of cultural evolution. Thinking about scientific questions is still presented to the public as a competitive sport with winners and losers. For players of the sport with public reputations to defend, it is more important to belong to a winning team than to examine the evidence.

Cultural evolution was centered for a hundred thousand years on tales told by elders to children sitting around the cave fire. That cave-fire evolution gave us brains that are wonderfully sensitive to fable and fantasy, but insensitive to facts and figures. To enable a tribe to prevail in the harsh world of predators and prey, it was helpful to have brains with strong emotional bonding to shared songs and stories. It was not helpful to have brains questioning whether the stories were true. Our scientists and politicians of the modern age evolved recently from the cave-children. They still, as Charles Darwin remarked about human beings in general, bear the indelible stamp of their lowly origin.
***
Indur Goklany has assembled a massive collection of evidence to demonstrate two facts. First, the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide are dominant over the climatic effects and are overwhelmingly beneficial. Second, the climatic effects observed in the real world are much less damaging than the effects predicted by the climate models, and have also been frequently beneficial. I am hoping that the scientists and politicians who have been blindly demonizing carbon dioxide for 37 years will one day open their eyes and look at the evidence.

#

Freeman Dyson’s Full Forward here:

Now retired, Freeman Dyson is a theoretical physicist and professor emeritus of Mathematical
Physics and Astrophysics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. He is noted for
unifying the three versions of quantum electrodynamics by Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga.
Also, he is noted for his contributions to solid-state physics, astronomy, and nuclear engineering.
His foreword to Goklany’s report on carbon dioxide merits quoting beyond what is above:
“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. Those of my scientific colleagues
who believe the prevailing dogma about carbon dioxide will not find Goklany’s evidence
convincing. 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. That
is to me the central mystery of climate science. It is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery.
How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts? In this
foreword I offer a tentative solution of the mystery.
“There are many examples in the history of science of irrational beliefs promoted by famous
thinkers and adopted by loyal disciples. Sometimes, as in the use of bleeding as a treatment for
various diseases, irrational belief did harm to a large number of human victims. George
Washington was one of the victims. Other irrational beliefs, such as the phlogiston theory of
burning or the Aristotelian cosmology of circular celestial motions, only did harm by delaying the
careful examination of nature. In all these cases, we see a community of people happily united in
a false belief that brought leaders and followers together. Anyone who questioned the prevailing
belief would upset the peace of the community.
Real advances in science require a different cultural tradition, with individuals who invent new
tools to explore nature and are not afraid to question authority. Science driven by rebels and
heretics searching for truth has made great progress in the last three centuries. But the new
culture of scientific scepticism is a recent growth and has not yet penetrated deeply into our
thinking. The old culture of group loyalty and dogmatic belief is still alive under the surface,
guiding the thoughts of scientists as well as the opinions of ordinary citizens.
To understand human behavior, I look at human evolution. About a hundred thousand years ago,
our species invented a new kind of evolution. In addition to biological evolution based on genetic
changes, we began a cultural evolution based on social and intellectual changes. Biological
evolution did not stop, but cultural evolution was much faster and quickly became dominant.
Social customs and beliefs change and spread much more rapidly than genes.
Cultural evolution was enabled by spoken languages and tribal loyalties. Tribe competed with
tribe and culture with culture. The cultures that prevailed were those that promoted tribal
cohesion. Humans were always social animals, and culture made us even more social. We evolved
to feel at home in a group that thinks alike. It was more important for a group of humans to be
united than to be right. It was always dangerous and usually undesirable to question authority.
When authority was seriously threatened, heretics were burned at the stake.
I am suggesting that the thinking of politicians and scientists about controversial issues today is
still tribal. Science and politics are not essentially different from other aspects of human culture.
Science and politics are products of cultural evolution. Thinking about scientific questions is still
presented to the public as a competitive sport with winners and losers. For players of the sport
with public reputations to defend, it is more important to belong to a winning team than to
examine the evidence.
Cultural evolution was centered for a hundred thousand years on tales told by elders to children
sitting around the cave fire. That cave-fire evolution gave us brains that are wonderfully sensitive
to fable and fantasy, but insensitive to facts and figures. To enable a tribe to prevail in the harsh
world of predators and prey, it was helpful to have brains with strong emotional bonding to
shared songs and stories. It was not helpful to have brains questioning whether the stories were
true. Our scientists and politicians of the modern age evolved recently from the cave-children.
They still, as Charles Darwin remarked about human beings in general, bear the indelible stamp
of their lowly origin.
Dyson describes how he opposed a 1978 effort by the Department of Energy called:
“Comprehensive Plan for Carbon Dioxide Effects Research and Assessment.” The plan ignored
the beneficial direct effects of carbon dioxide increase on plant growth.
My protest received no attention and the Comprehensive Plan prevailed. As a result, the public
perception of carbon dioxide has been dominated by the computer climate-model experts who
designed the plan. The tribal group-thinking of that group of experts was amplified and reinforced
by a supportive political bureaucracy.
Indur Goklany has assembled a massive collection of evidence to demonstrate two facts. First, the
non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide are dominant over the climatic effects and are
overwhelmingly beneficial. Second, the climatic effects observed in the real world are much less
damaging than the effects predicted by the climate models, and have also been frequently
beneficial. I am hoping that the scientists and politicians who have been blindly demonizing
carbon dioxide for 37 years will one day open their eyes and look at the evidence. Goklany and I
do not claim to be infallible. Like the climate-model experts, we have also evolved recently from
the culture of the cave-children. Like them, we have inherited our own set of prejudices and
blindnesses. Truth emerges when different groups of explorers listen to each other’s stories and
correct each other’s mistake.