Freeman Dyson,
now retired, is a
theoretical physicist
and professor emeritus
of Mathematical Physics
and Astrophysics
at the Institute for
Advanced Study
in Princeton.
Dyson is
a very bright man,
and if you
doubt that,
consider that
he unified
the three versions
of quantum
electrodynamics
by Feynman,
Schwinger
and Tomonaga.
Dyson also made
large contributions
to solid-state physics,
astronomy, and
nuclear engineering.
We are lucky that
Dyson wrote,
in plain language,
the Foreword
to Indur Goklany’s
book on carbon dioxide:
“The Improving State
of the World: Why We’re
Living Longer, Healthier,
More Comfortable Lives
On a Cleaner Planet”
I am lucky
that he mirrors
what I've been saying
on this blog since 2015:
CO2 is beneficial,
not harmful,
and no one has
ever been harmed,
from adding CO2
to the atmosphere.
Our planet's"C3" plants,
and humans and animals
who eat them,
would benefit from
doubling or tripling
the current CO2 level.
That logical conclusion
is based on real science.
There is very little
real science in
modern climate
(junk) "science".
Freeman Dyson
wrote:
( edited,
reformatted
for easier reading
on smart phones,
and many
commas added,
where I thought
they belonged,
or maybe I just have
a comma fetish? ):
“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.
... 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 ?
There are
many examples,
in the history
of science,
of irrational beliefs,
promoted by
famous thinkers,
and adopted by
loyal disciples.
...
Anyone
who questioned
the prevailing belief,
would upset the peace
of the community.
...
Science driven by
rebels and heretics,
searching for truth,
has made
great progress,
in the last
three centuries.
But the new culture
of scientific skepticism,
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.
...
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.
... 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.
...
Our scientists,
and politicians,
of the modern age,
evolved recently
from the
cave-children.
...
the public perception
of carbon dioxide
has been dominated
by the computer
climate-model experts.
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.
Ye Editor notes:
The 1979
Charney Report,
of the
National Academy
of Sciences,
was dominated
by climate modelers.
That report claimed
carbon dioxide, and
greenhouse gases,
in general,
will have
roughly triple
the atmospheric
warming effect,
than indicated
by decades of
laboratory research.
Those "findings"
were based on
guesses, and
hypotheses,
but no
hard evidence.
At the time,
there was
no way
to test guesses
made by
the modelers.
There were no global
temperature data
from the troposphere,
where the greenhouse
gas effect occurs.
In 2018, we now have
39 years (since 1979)
of troposphere
temperature data,
measured by
weather satellites,
and independently
confirmed by
temperature data,
from completely
different instruments,
on weather balloons.
As a group,
the climate "models"
greatly overestimate
the warming trends
in the troposphere,
with the US
climate models
among the worst.
But smarmy
modelers,
have failed
to correct
their errors
since 1979.
Governments
should not
base any policy
on global
climate models,
yet they do.
The UN's
Intergovernmental
Panel for
Climate Change (IPCC),
and its
parent organization,
the UN Framework
Convention
for Climate Change
(UNFCCC)
see billions of dollars
coming their way,
if they continue
to sound false alarms
of dangerous
carbon dioxide-caused
global warming
( that is not happening ).
The latest IPCC
science fiction report,
called "SR1.5",
even changed
the definition
of "climate"
to include
fifteen years
of the
FUTURE climate,
based on
temperature
wild guesses
from climate models
-- models known
to be wrong
since the 1970's.
Modern climate "science"
is junk science,
not real science.