New York Times' Climate Skepticism

Last Sunday's New York Times Magazine story about climate skeptic Freeman Dyson has me worried. For those readers who missed it, the profile is a largely favorable piece about Institute for Advanced Study scholar Dyson, best known for helping unite qunatum and electrodynamic theory and for his belief that nuclear weapons are the world's greatest evil. Dyson has more recently turned his formidable intellectual powers to global warming and concluded that carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere might be a good thing because it will help plants grow. He's also, according to the article, highly skeptical of modelling (he says that "the climate-studies people who work with models always tend to overestimate their models.")

Dyson is hardly the world's only climate skeptic but the Times article is particularly worrisome for several reasons. First, Dyson is "an Obama-loving, Bush-loathing liberal who has spent his life opposing American wars and fighting for the protection of natural resources." Second, Dyson is portrayed as wickedly smart and intellectually wide-ranging, making him "far more formidable than just the latest peevish right-wing climate change denier." And third, author Nicholas Dawidoff did an absolutely terrible job pressing back on Dyson's beliefs, instead portraying the debate as one where both sides "have the timbre of truth and the ring of potential plausibility."

Let's take just one of Dyson's claims, that climate scientists tend to overestimate their models. Nice claim except that to date climate scientists seem to have underestimated their models. Emissions are rising more rapidly than predicted. Sea levels are rising faster than estimated. Arctic sea ice, permafrost and polar ice caps are all melting more quickly than previously believed. There's no evidence that author Dawidoff knows any of this or that he pressed Dyson to square his claim about model overestimates with the facts on the ground.

Perhaps the favorable slant of the Dyson profile is all we can expect from a writer who specializes in baseball, as Dawidoff does. But NY Times DotEarth blogger Andrew Revkin is now also praising Dyson as "one of a handful of scientists for whom ideological predispositions have no bearing on how they approach a technical question." Ironically, the Dyson profile ran on the same day as Thomas Friedman's handwringing column about how science shows that "climate change is happening faster and will bring bigger changes quicker than we anticipated just a few years ago." Maybe the Times thinks that Friedman somehow cancels out its irresponsible Dyson profile. I fear not, however.

Comments

[UbiVeritas]

Only climate experts really understand climate, so we should blindly and uncritically accept everything they say about climate.

[zola77]

Unless you understand climate science, then yes, it is probably wise to accept their point of view.

When your loved one needs a heart transplant do you rely on the doctor (who is trained) to give you the right advice and do the right thing? Or do you argue with him all the way through the operation, even though you have no expertise in the area?

[Richard2]

Thank you New York Times for a thoughtful, in depth article about a great scientist, Freeman Dyson. And thank you for not ignoring Mr. Dyson's thoughts about global warming.

Freedom of speech is a great American right. It appears Mr. Dyson moved to the United States in part to enjoy our wonderful freedom of speech. That he has thought so many original thoughts about all kinds of scientific issues is wonderful. He is a breath of fresh air, much like Dr. Feynmen before him, and a great American.

It is sad that so many fine scientists remain silent about the great disconnect between the global warming computer models, which predict ever accelerating warming indicators, and the actual measurements and observations of climate around the world, which indicate a stable to cooling planet at this moment in time.

[zola77]

He doesnt work in the field of climate science! So are you saying the majority of the scientific community (who have been studying this for over a hundred years) are less-than-great scientists, or BAD scientists because they dont share your point of view?

[A. Siegel - Huffpost Blogger]

Nice that you wrote this but perhaps you might have wanted to explore the web and provide links / discussion of others who have discussed Dyson.

David Sassoon, Solve Climate: NY Times Invents a Climate Science War http://solveclimate.com/blog/20090329/ny-times-invents-climate-science-warr) "The story does a disservice to science, whose fundamental method is one of skepticism and constant dispute. It would be useful if the Times found a different frame to report on these issues. Magnifying false conflicts sells newspapers, but that's about it."

Joe Romm, Climate Progress, http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/25/new-york-times-magazine-profile-global-warming-crackpot-freeman-dyson-slander-james-hansen/

Etc ...

[S1m0n]

"Emissions are rising more rapidly than predicted.. Sea levels are rising faster than estimated. Arctic ice, permafrost and polar ice caps are all melting more quickly than previously believed. There's no evidence that author Dawidoff knows any of this..."

Frankly, there's no indication in this piece that the author *knows* any of these things, either; all of these claimed 'facts' are without support. Given that these facts are the substance of this controversy, Ms. Carlson's rebuttal would be greatly improved if she had attempted to support even one of these assertions.

Without such an effort, this piece consists of nothing but contradiction and bluster.

And I'm not even a sceptic; Carlson and I are on the same side. If this is my reaction, imagine how unconvincing a climate sceptic would find it.

[melmoid]

I read the full article and wrote Mr. Dyson a letter. He did get away with some nonsense that a science reporter should have challenged. For instance the whole business about CO2 being a plant food and that we simply need to genetically engineer plants to use more CO2. Anyone who has studied basic ecology or even a good gardner knows that CO2 is necessary for photosynthesis but that other limiting factors soon come into play in primary plant productivity such as soil fertility, water, trace elements, space, light availability, pH and so forth. The plants of the earth are not keeping up with the availability of CO2 since CO2 levels have been rising for years. Water will no doubt be the major limiting factor. See the article on Australia in this months National Geographic.

[zola77]

Oh I hate this!

Dyson is a good scientists but he DOESNT work in the field of climate science! He also prides himself on being a rebel "show-pony".

Why cant the MSM show some responsibility on scientific issues. Why do they present a minority opinion as a legitimate alternative? It doesnt work that way in science - a minority opinion is an opinion with no supporting data, NOT an acceptable alternative!! Thats akin to saying creationism is a legitimate alternative to evolution - oh wait, this is America right?

I wish news outlets would refer to trained scientists on how to report on scientific issues because on many, many scientific issues, they screw up magnificently.

[HeevenSteven]

That NYT piece was so much crap. Dawidoff has no business writing about subjects he's completely ignorant about. He simply does not have the context to be in that arena.