The New York Times Magazine has a profile of climate skeptic Freeman Dyson, who believes ‘global warming’ is more ideology than fact.
Dyson — “a great problem-solver who is not convinced that climate change is a great problem” — believes he sees things that vested scientists cannot. The article states:
Among Dyson’s gifts is interpretive clarity, a penetrating ability to grasp the method and significance of what many kinds of scientists do. His thoughts about how science works appear in a series of lucid, elegant books for nonspecialists that have made him a trusted arbiter of ideas ranging far beyond physics.
But the reasoning behind his skeptical view - aside from being a skeptic of scientific consensus - appears lacking. Nor has Dyson dipped into the fray with the usual tools of scientific reasoning — or even a current paper. One senses these are the musings of someone inclined to go against the grain but disinclined to use the tools of science to establish his argument. But then, this is someone who’s also into the paranormal.
The article has provoked a firestorm — as I suspect it was designed to do – notably by Joseph Romm over at Climate Progress who is incredulous that the magazine would give such space to a “climate crackpot” when climate scientists have settled the issue.
But then, that is Dyson’s, and perhaps the article’s, point. You can exist as the holdout and still have currency, since the only thing that can prove you wrong is time, long after you’ve exited the stage. In the meantime, the stance makes great copy.