Notes from a Freeman Dyson Lecture

[birdless]

I'd never heard of this guy, but i liked what i read about him in Wikipedia, and i really liked what he was quoted as saying in this issue of GDUSA Green eNews. I thought it might be interesting to some of you, and may foster some interesting discussion. Some of what he said was new to me (I really need to stay more current).

PUBLISHER’S NOTE: THE OBSESSION
I have spent parts of the past 23 summers at Chautauqua Institution — a unique center for continuing education — in western New York State. Sitting in the century old amphitheater, I have heard lectures by hundreds of leaders and wannabes in politics, religion, history, literature, business and entertainment, including eight presidential candidates, four Nobel Prize winners and dozens of Pulitzer Prize winners. Of these speakers, the most memorable for me: Freeman Dyson, physicist, mathematician, futurist and humanitarian of deep and out-of-the-box thinking. (A quick look at his Wikipedia entry will bring you up to speed.) I have learned that when Freeman Dyson speaks, he is not always proven right but the listeners’ mind expands. And what is he saying about the issues we deal with in the GDUSA Green newsletter? In a sure-to-be controversial article in the current issue of The New York Review of Books, Dyson breaks with the scientific establishment on the meaning of global warming with a multi-part argument:

1. Environmentalism has become the secular religion of our time, and that is a wonderful thing. It is, he says, “a religion of hope and respect for nature” that should unite us all.

2. Global warming is real and objectifiable. But it is not clear that it represents the single greatest threat to our ecology. Unfortunately, some environmentalists are so zealous in this belief that they have come to equate environmentalism entirely with global warming.

3. This leads them to mistakenly treat anyone who questions the degree of danger as an enemy of the environment. This chills scientific debate, confuses the public, and marginalizes many excellent scientists and passionate environmentalists.

4. It also leads the zealots to ignore the possibility that global warming may be manageable by a combination of moderate emission limits and controls, combined with innovative biotech solutions. Similarly, it promotes draconian policies that may be economically punishing for the rich and poor world alike beyond the conceivable benefit. Think Al Gore’s proposals.

5. The obsession with global warming may actually be “distracting public attention from... more serious and immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice.”

— Gordon Kaye

[Russell Nash]

::Puts on moderator hat::

In the past this type of opening gambit has lead to some nasty arguments.  The person who I believe made these arguments get so nasty is no longer here.  This gives me the feeling that this will most likely be a very well-reasoned and respectful thread.  However given the past history of these threads, the moderators will be watching.  Please be polite and whenever possible link to your sources of stats.

Thank you
::Takes off moderator hat::

[birdless]

Wow. I am by no means trying to troll or otherwise foment unrest. In fact, i am hoping that, as usual, i will be educated by our fellow posters. I noticed and hated that there were no sources indicated by the note-taker. I don't know whether Dyson referenced any sources or not. But i'm also not real sure that i see how what he says is objectionable, at least to the point of getting nasty about it.

With that said, in deference to the moderators and everyone else, if you think this thread is a bad idea, please feel free to lock it or delete it. I will bear no ill-will.

[Russell Nash]

No no no.  I didn't think you were trolling.  It's just that we've had an anti-science person on our forums before.  Whenever we had a science question that didn't fit in his very narrow view, the discussions got out of hand.  I was just asking that sources be sited and people be nice.  I really don't think it will be a problem, but stupid fights make people quit the forums and I like our community now.

[birdless]

I didn't meant to imply that i thought you thought that.... <unravel>.... Just thought i'd lay any doubts to rest.

What is an anti-science person and what are they doing on a sci-fi forum?  lol!

[Ocicat]

I certainly agree that there are environmental dangers that are very important, but unrelated to global warming.  Such as pollutants like mercury in the environment, and overuse of pesticides - bad for people eating the produce, and may be causing things like the bee colony collapse syndrome.

I also agree that these discussions need to be based on science not panic or dogma.  As the president and founder of the Coalition to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide it would be pretty hypocritical to take any other stance.

I do get nervous though when people start talking about "innovative biotech solutions".  I'm all for research in this direction, but it needs to be applied with caution.  The law of unintended consequences applies.

[DKT]

I kept waiting to get to the part where it revealed he was related to Miles Dyson.  Ah, well. 

[qwints]

Is environmentalism a religion?
Maybe, for some. But that absolutely does not imply that there are not pragmatic reasons to care about the environment. There may be only spiritual reasons (whatever that means) to save the whales, but there are very practical reasons to stop global warming, such as preventing a global food crisis.

I've heard a couple of interviews with Freeman Dyson and he seems quite well educated. Thus I would have to hear more details before I judge his statements.

[Boggled Coriander]

Some people would have you believe global warming isn't real, just because they find it politically expedient to make people disbelieve it.  I really hate people like that.

Freeman Dyson is not one of them. 

I don't have the knowledge to pass judgment on the specifics of what he's saying, but he is quite definitely Not A Crackpot.  He's also the guy behind the Dyson Sphere.

[wintermute]

There are practical reasons to save the whales, too.

Has no-one seen Star Trek IV?

[Thaurismunths]

I do get nervous though when people start talking about "innovative biotech solutions".  I'm all for research in this direction, but it needs to be applied with caution.  The law of unintended consequences applies.

I agree. One of the un-heralded dangers to the environment is something we all dream about: Nanotechnology
Organic systems aren't very good at handling particles that small. They're easy to make, but hard to contain, and even harder to get rid of.
Here are a couple links:
What is Nanopollution?
Nano-Pollution: No Tiny Issue?

[birdless]

What are some examples of biotech solutions? Why is it cause for nervousness?

[Thaurismunths]

What are some examples of biotech solutions? Why is it cause for nervousness?

An example of biotech would be ethanol powered vehicles, which aren't more efficient, better for the environment, and won't help the economy.

[stePH]

What are some examples of biotech solutions? Why is it cause for nervousness?

An example of biotech would be ethanol powered vehicles, which aren't more efficient, better for the environment, and won't help the economy.

Huh?  I believe alcohol burns quite clean, so how is that not better for the environment?

[wintermute]

What are some examples of biotech solutions? Why is it cause for nervousness?

An example of biotech would be ethanol powered vehicles, which aren't more efficient, better for the environment, and won't help the economy.

Huh?  I believe alcohol burns quite clean, so how is that not better for the environment?

The ethanol itself is clean, yes. But making it is not. Ethanol formed from corn is very expensive to make, and requires lots of oil-based fertiliser. In countries where ethanol-based fuel is a reality (like Brazil), they make their ethanol from sugar cane, which is cheap and easy.

In short, we should be powering our cars with rum, not bourbon.

[Thaurismunths]

What are some examples of biotech solutions? Why is it cause for nervousness?

An example of biotech would be ethanol powered vehicles, which aren't more efficient, better for the environment, and won't help the economy.

Huh?  I believe alcohol burns quite clean, so how is that not better for the environment?

In short:
If we turn corn in to fuel instead of meat, prices rise for meat.
If we demand corn be grown for fuel instead of meat the government will subsidize it even more than it already is and farmers will forsake edible vegetables and their prices will rise for vegetables.
It takes petroleum to grow corn.
Relying on monocultures to support us is putting all your eggs in one basket. We did that with petroleum, and look where we are today.
There's an aweful lot online about the downsides of ethanol, below are a few links.

A dark side to the ethanol boom?
Ethanol's Success Story May Have Downside
Election-year ethanol talk is good politics, bad math (Read with a grain of salt. It's a professional blog, but the numbers jive.)

[Bdoomed]

hmm...water power... why hasnt this been replicated yet?
electrolysis... brown gas... comeon, can't be that hard.
for those who think electrolysis takes a lot of energy...

i dont claim to be an expert at all, and correct me if im wrong... but this seems incredibly possible.  and easily possible.  why hasnt this been done massively yet?

(and yes youtube isnt the most credible thing but i know for a fact this has been done by many people in many places, it is very possible)

[wintermute]

hmm...water power... why hasnt this been replicated yet?
electrolysis... brown gas... comeon, can't be that hard.
for those who think electrolysis takes a lot of energy...

i dont claim to be an expert at all, and correct me if im wrong... but this seems incredibly possible.  and easily possible.  why hasnt this been done massively yet?

(and yes youtube isnt the most credible thing but i know for a fact this has been done by many people in many places, it is very possible)

Whatever his fuel actually is, we can be sure that it's not actually water. If breaking water into hydrogen and oxygen took less energy than was released in fusing them back into water, then you'd basically have a perpetual motion machine.

The fact that he can hold his hand in the flame without injury, but we see it instantly "melt" metal suggests that it's not doing what he claims. Unless this energy source is so magical that it can distinguish between things you want to burn and things you don't. Somehow I doubt that.

And if the "HHO" notation isn't completely meaningless, then it refers to a structure that's incredibly unstable and would require huge amounts of energy to force it into that configuration. Which would make it even less efficient.