Freeman Dyson corresponds with Steve Connor

"Scepticism is as important for a good journalist as it is for a good scientist."

This is Freeman Dyson's parting thought in a series of Q&A emails between himself and The Independent's Steve Connor. (Link in title)

Connor's parting shot is
It seems to me that although there are still many uncertainties, much of the science of climate change is pretty settled, more so than you will admit to. To continue to report on "both sides" as you suggest is rather like ringing up the Flat Earth Society and asking them to comment on new discoveries in plate tectonics.
The Flat Earth Society reference should really be directed at the Alarmists. David Evans (Now touring Australia with Jo Nova and Lord Christopher Monckton) realised that the science had moved on when the  Ice Core Data show that the rise in temperature precedes the rise in atmospheric CO2
On global warming, public policy is where the science was in 1998. Due to new evidence, science has since moved off in a different direction.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN science body on this matter, is a political body composed mainly of bureaucrats. So far it has resisted acknowledging the new evidence. But as Lord Keynes famously asked, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
Connor keeps pushing Dyson about the "consensus." Freeman's reply
Among my friends, I do not find much of a consensus. Most of us are sceptical and do not pretend to be experts. My impression is that the experts are deluded because they have been studying the details of climate models for 30 years and they come to believe the models are real. After 30 years they lose the ability to think outside the models. And it is normal for experts in a narrow area to think alike and develop a settled dogma. The dogma is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.


  1. I totally agree with Freeman Dyson on the issue of anthropogenic global warming. You don't invoke consensus if you have proof! The only reason why a consensus is ever deemed necessary or relevant - is simply because a challenge is anticipated in return. In my opinion, the only reason why a challenge would be anticipated is because sufficient doubt exists in the first case to deem the consensus necessary. THINK ABOUT IT?

    If solid physical proof exists to support an hypothesis in Science, why go to the lengths of forming a consensus? The proof should be more than sufficient in itself to settle the argument. In such a case, the consensus would be unnecessary to begin with.

    People need to learn humility and develop the ability to think critically. These are attributes of which the finest of scientists are made.


Post a Comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!