Famed Physicist Freeman Dyson Predicts the Future
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 07. 2024
- Dyson expounds on what might happen in the next 50 years in biotech, neuroscience, climate change, space travel, and more: spectrum.ieee.org/video/aerosp...
- Věda a technologie
I have the feeling that Freeman Dyson's thought processes are way more colossal in depth than the climate activist / climate skeptic debate.
How dare you!
I have so much love and respect for this man. A truly great intellect. And a wonderful human being.
Here here, Simon. I agree 100%. I actually came into this video from watching some others that had given me something of a lame impression of Dyson (not of his intelligence - that's clearly top drawer). But he struck me as somewhat "PC." But he's not. He's clearly THINKING, finding his best opinion, and telling us what it is. Amazing person!
R.I.P Mr Dyson! Respect!
Nooo
😥
He lived a spectacular life.
I wish the whole long form interview could be posted
Freeman was a great man. Rip Sir salute to you.
It is probable that something improbable will occur. Aristotle
*Einstein
Freeman Dyson, brilliant, as always.
Enjoyed this video
Great video, I'm looking forward to my "grown" desk!
💝💓💞💗💖🙏Your life will always be cherished by many and your life's perspectives and views will not be forgotten 🌅
I send you greetings at the speed of light Freeman Dyson.
Only a true Great Man can speak about humility.
aliens have already found us.....they prefer the dolphins...
Yep. They are definitely tastier
Thanks for all the fish...
Dolphins are nasty creatures, they rape and extremely violent. They probably think the same of humans as awesome creatures that feed them fish and play with them but little do they know how nasty humans can be.
If you be thinking what he's saying is unbelievably creative and imaginative to borderline sci-fi, how things in the near future would be weird and lame at the same time, just remember that that's how a person who lived a couple hundred of years ago will feel when someone from this timeline told them how life would be today. Never under estimate a guy who has lived a long life observing his surroundings, the brain could pick up on trends and cues all along the way as it is, as one neuroscientist once put it, a machine built to process predictions (i.e. where your next foot will fall when you're "falling" forward a.k.a walking, where the ball will be, etc.).
And on that note, see how smart people in the past have predicted our future not spot-on correctly, but almost in-line. They must've picked up all those subtle trends too. And the only contradiction is that their imaginative predictions do not happen locally, but will apply globally. Perhaps tomorrow: interplanetary?
They predicted that today there will be flying cars. Not spot on, but almost in-line if the subject is personal flight: cheaper air fares, manned drones, etc. More diverse group from the global population from any backgrounds and cultures today have experienced flight and travel.
They predicted that today there will be time machines. Not spot on, but almost in-line: Telescopes seeing further and further into the past billion light years, quantum entanglement experiments crossing our space-time reality first time a couple centimeters before Chine broke the record (via satellite to three ground comms each 1200km away), even your phone's GPS software is taking account the time dilation differences experienced by the satellites (up to 7 micro seconds per day) so that it could work properly.
And my favourite:
They predicted that today there will be cyborgs, half human half machine. Not spot-on as they've imagine it (like robotic limbs and parts of brain), but this one is very much in-line:
Our brains have adapted to the way we live since smart phones took over the world. We now use our eye muscles and coordination in a slightly different way under small area focusing and scrolling - and our attention span is as short as the fast cuts in today's media editing. Our hunting process for any knowledge became faster and simplified with this "new" tool. Now, where's the cyborg part? If in 1999 they found that the navigation-related structure in the hippocampi of taxi drivers undergo special changes as it expands larger, compared to other people, imagine what navigation softwares will do to our hippocampies today. In fact, what will certain apps that we "couldn't live without" will do to other areas of our grey matter as we became more dependent to this machine? Cyborgs have arrived, and it's us. Not necessarily a bad thing, just that, they're in-line with the predictions.
Why am I rambling like this at 6AM as the only person still in the office pulling things out of me arse in youtube when I'm supposed to finish this bloody deadline beats me lol.
14:15
i love the SuperChicken prediction
Interesting thoughts especially on growing objects, you would think if you could map the genetic code of a tree that you could program it to grow in any form you would want.
why not re-code genetic on your hand instead and made it grow screw driver or knife or swiss knife? why do we even need to grow it on trees...
Thank you Dr.Dyson
Great to hear Freeman Dyson's perspective on almost any subject. His polymathic grasp of so many fields is remarkable and singular. As others have commented before, the interviewer, whether she realizes it or not, is broadcasting some very puzzling looks which distract from the speaker's message.
Yes - the breadth of his knowledge is astounding.
Dear interviewer do remember that youre nerarer to him than to the mic so please speak louder than just want him to hear because thats the whole point of it to let us hear what you both are discussing not just hearing him talking.
I'm just an old physicist, says one of the greatest scientists to ever live.
No matter what you do in this life, learn to code.
x73aNdit why ?
50 y0u can wr1t3 b5 quotes on yt comment section?
True.
Coding language constantly changes and even if you do you will not be any happier
Why is it that only older people dare to criticize global heating?
Totally Unpredictable! Unpredictable Human Nature!
Freeman Dyson at his BEST. Neuroscience and Biology, Biotechnology interesting.
He didn't look at her once
well am not sure its a "her"
At his age, just being in the room and living is an accomplishment - give the man a break.
The part about predictions not being representative of the truth is something a lot of people could reflect on. I prefer to not differentiate between forecasts and fortunes, it's all divination.
"So you're saying there's a chance..."
sadly we lost him .....
I wonder if Dyson considered the Dark Forest theory of aliens that Hawking (and Chinese sci-fi author Cixin Liu) talked about (i.e., hostile aliens whose experience combatting other aliens taught them that developing species like ours cannot be allowed to continue at the dire risk of our becoming more advanced and powerful enough to defeat them, and who will react to reception of our intelligent radio signals by discovering our location and doing their best to snuff us all out in rational compliance with their well-thought out alien species survival tactics and security protocols)
If they're smart, they will.
A great scientist. And like most scientists, he tends to have a distorted conception of social phenomenons. Poor countries don't lack minerals. In fact, most of them are troves of natural resources. But they're controlled by rich countries for their benefit
They would never have used them and the western world would be a lot worse off. It's the ordinary people of the western world that are using them and the poor countries eventually are better off.
@@peterdeacon4628 So how come they're still poor countries?
@@gilbertg7 ..you tell me? why is the west rich?
@@peterdeacon4628 So you don't know
@@gilbertg7 Don't be rude if you want to get on you have to work hard as my society and ancestors did. Maybe think a bit harder and also read Thomas Sowell. and stop blaming others for a bad situation you may be in. I have just been diagnosed with throat cancer and told I only have 3 months to live I shall do my best to beat it. I always look for the positive in life and do my best to stay clear of negative thoughts .
Oldest living physicist
let's see them aliens
9:53 neuroscience
A truly great man. As for climate, id like to see a great investment in focused research on the sun, its dynamics and convection processes. That is where strong inferences and payoffs can be made in understanding mean Earth temperature.
That's patently ridiculous. Earth's internal heat arises from a completely different source from the sun's. The sun has nuclear fusion going on inisde; the Earth doesn't. There is no comparison whatsoever. As far as intelligently gathering energy from the sun, all we really need to know if the frequency distribution of that energy, and the amount falling at various latitudes / times of year. That is all well-understood.
He is real vulcan
With all due respects, it seems it somehow never occurred to him to run his ideas by actual climate scientists. CO2 is not a substitute for water, it can only increase growth insofar as water and soil nutrients permit and its greenhouse effect can be demonstrated in a lab!
You are uninformed...the more co2... The less water plants need to florish
He didn't question the greenhouse effect anywhere and he has ran his ideals with climate "scientists". But many people fail to understand, that for climate "science" and for example many well understood physics topics are at totally different level in complexity. Most laws of physics are tested and verified to completely different standard and their successful applications to people are visible everywhere. Climate science predictions aren't proven at all if considered by the same standards that simpler subjects have been tested and verified by empirical experiment. For some reason many people like to use this tremendous success of few fields of science (like physics) and to give kind of impression to those who are less informed, that this is what ever thing is "science" and would be verified to same standard, which is not true, mainly for political and/or ideological reasons.
In universal food chain we maybe at the bottom
Sir, you are not alone at all. Many more than you know don’t believe in the carbon farce.
R.I.P
I'm glad he has the courage to speak out against the "climate change" religion. Very daring - it seems when you're as lauded and accomplished as he is you can actually do such things without worrying about the political repurcussions.
Chemist I guess you dont have to take a physicists word over others on that topic. :p
Chemist Climate change is not a religion and that you call it a religion proves you have no clue what you're talking about. I'm sure as Florida is slowly covered by ocean water you'll be saying it's not happening, and when Florida is completely gone you'll ask why the LIEberals didn't do anything about it.
Real Name You do yourself no credit by mentioning epic and biblical consequences as penance for my "denial."
Despite what POTUS dictates to us the science is most certainly not settled. Consider the research suggesting that, historically, CO2 increase follows temperature increase and *not the other way around*: hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/08/new-blockbuster-paper-finds-man-made.html....And this: www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php
And back to your sea level blather, it's been rising since the last ice age - first quickly, right after that end of that ice age; and now tapering off to almost no net change: www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/09/24/alarmists-are-in-way-over-their-heads-on-rising-ocean-claims/. Mathematically the *rate of sea level increase is decreasing* (if you understand that) as it's been doing so for the past 10,000 years.
What you need to realize is this whole climate change nonsense is a power grab by Big Government to scare the crap out of simple-minded people who don't check the facts. These scary stories will make you comfortable with Big Government getting even bigger, the crippling of our economy as we try to sustain our standard of living with impossibly high tax burdens that subsidize solar panels and wind farms, not to mention enormous wealth transfer from the West to the 3rd world as we try to buy our way out of non-existent cataclysmic sea level rise and other scary stories foisted upon us by the Global Elite.
Please stop being such a sucker.
He has nothing to lose
And most lauded, accomplished scientists disagree with him.
Curious how he doesn’t even look at her when talking; not even a single glance - as if she were a robot or a 3D virtual reality of sorts. 😀 A strong hint at the future tendencies, perhaps? Dyson is an incredibly kind and respectful human being, so I’m certain he is not trying to actively ignore her or act arrogantly aloof. Then again, he is known for his characteristically mischievous laughs; perhaps he’s trying his best to avoid looking at her haircut so he wouldn’t inadvertently breakout into a ‘perturbative’ laughing frenzy!
I just wrote that off to him being OLD. It gets tough, according to my mom.
I saw it as him focussing on and describing what he's actually looking at in his mind.
I love the idea of bio-manufacturing, but i don’t want my table to have to be watered every week, and given flu shots every year 🤣 and imagine if it sneezed when i was just signing some paper 🤣!
I would think the things would grow, like plants, and then "die," and leave skeletal remains in the desired form. Long as you're willing to have skeletons in your closet (ok, not closet, but house), you're aces.
If we are being honest we are overconfident and don't truly understand climate change. It seems fairly certain that carbon and many other molecules increase the average temperature on the surface of earth by reducing the amount of electromagnetic radiation (heat) which may escape without being absorbed. However, we cannot say with confidence this is the only thing that could be having a significant effect. The earth by itself is a massively non-linear thermal system (most of it is very hot liquid rock and metal that is flowing) add to this the sun and dynamics of our solar system and how these all relate, again non-linearly, and you'd have to be delusional to say there can only be one thing to point to. The knowledge, data, and advanced non-linear modeling to simulate this is far beyond where we are. Dyson is a physicist so he probably holds any claim of undeniable evidence to a much higher standard than most non-rigerous scientists seem to. Where Dyson logically messed up is in claiming that introducing more carbon emission would be beneficial and prevent deserts, etc, as this would still involve highly complex dynamics where any attempt to model it would be a big oversimplification. There's no way he could confidently say this is beneficial to the earth. As a final note we don't know if there are other factors involved but it certainly seems that carbon and other molecules are at least one, and therefore certainly should eliminate emissions.
I agree that we don't fully understand it. It's clear to me that CO2 level in the atmosphere is rising, and it's also pretty much clear that humans are contributing. It is somewhat alarming to see how rapidly it's going up. But... we don't really understand the full connection between CO2 and temperature, and we also don't really know what the optimum temperature for the planet IS. In fact, the optimum temperature is likely a POLITICAL decision, because people living in coastal cities will prefer to have a temperature that doesn't flood them into having to move (and don't think of it as people dying - they'll just "back up" as the water rises), while northern farmers (southern in the southern hemisphere) would probably love to have higher temperatures that let them have a longer growing season. Furthermore, some time off in the future an ice age is coming, and we may then be happy for every bit of temperature gain we've managed to create. This is NOT a closed question, and the scientists who try to cast it as one are just promoting their own careers.
I see it a bit differently. If the IPCC predictions are true, how does that fit into the status quo? Climate change due to CO2 doesn’t happen in a vacuum with all the other factors of human prosperity stopped in their tracks. Presently, we have 7.5bn people on the planet with the technical capability to sustain more than that, average wage in most industrialised countries is about the top 1% income for the world, most of the world’s population is quite poor, we have 160m people world wide with Einstein/Dyson/Newton level IQ, only 1.6m of which have the average quality of life that most western nations have- the rest burn cow dung for heating and dig holes for water and 20% don’t have electricity. Status quo says that in 100 years, we will have 11bn people on the planet. Lowest standard of living will be that of a current worldwide top 1%, We will have 220m Einstein/Dyson/Newtons all alive at the same time and all with the quality of life that today’s world wide top 1% have...as in ability to communicate ideas around the world instantly and a society wealthy enough and with specialisation that allows genius level intellect to just focus on that and not collecting firewood or cow dung or water. The climate is unforgiving and dangerous and today, we are 50x better at making the climate safer than we were 100 years ago and the air and drinking water are the cleanest they’ve been in industrialised nations. In another 100 years, we will be 50 times better again, due to industrialisation, with even cleaner air and drinking water. Even if the climate is 4x more destructive because of CO2 (IPCC doesn’t suggest 4x more destructive), we will be 12.5x safer than we are today. Limiting CO2 and shale etc limits industrial progress of developing nations, slowing the improvement of quality of life for 99% of the world’s population, including 99% of the world’s problem solvers and geniuses. We have big problems from which we have no safety, one of which is asteroids. Another is solar flares. These problems will be solved by humanity faster and faster as more problem solvers and geniuses in developing nations benefit from rapid industrialisation. If the IPCC and their climate models are correct, it doesn’t matter, because technological advancement in agriculture and science and industrialisation improvements are more than a match for a more volatile and violent climate of the future. If we halt industrialisation of developing nations using fossil fuels though, we condemn 99% of the world’s population to a hard life and we rob humanity of the solutions to big problems that would come from those geniuses who are currently unable to prosper intellectually due to their circumstances. You can’t be scared by climate models and IPCC projections without plugging them into the world of the future that fossil fuels will give us. When this is done, any adverse climate model predictions are irrelevant when measured against the incredible future that humanity has ahead.
@@NoRegertsHere I actually agree with an awful lot of what you just said. I do NOT think we should halt progress - we've just in the last few years gotten to the point where the benefits are BEGINNING to reach down to those lowest echelons of lifestyle worldwide. We haven't "solved" the world poverty problem, but we've taken a bite out of it, in like the last 20 years. It took a while. We need more. I have faith in human ingenuity, and I believe we CAN lift the entire world up to a better place.
I also believe we are the first species in history with the power to actually take CONTROL of our climate. We don't have to just "take pot luck" on it. Who knows how much we could improve this ability? We might be able to keep temperatures low for now, and then inject some heat generating moves just as the next ice age begins. We could become EXPERT at this. And that would be fabulous.
But before we can do that we at least need a SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT model of how our actions affect climate. So all of these people with profit or political axes to grind just need to get OUT OF THE WAY and *demand* that science do its job and do it RIGHT.
I'll reiterate that I think behavior on both sides of this issue has been PATHETIC. The degree to which selfishness (business and political) has been driving the agenda is just unbelievably wrong.
KipIngram that’s cool. You can worry about climate even though it’s pretty much irrelevant when measured against the exponential progress being made elsewhere that the rest of the solvers and geniuses have created and will continue to create as more and more of them contribute to the free market of ideas over humanity’s amazing future. Effects of climate change are already solved and it’s not important to waste energy thinking about anymore. The other stuff will need all of humanity.
@@NoRegertsHere I'm not so much worried about climate now. I'm more worried about having the next ice age come upon us and not being prepared for it. I definitely don't think the world's about to collapse from climate effects in the next few decades.
did he fart? she's got a face on
I think it upset her that he didn't climb onto the climate change bandwagon whole hog. Her follow-up question was designed to try to elicit some form of agreement with the party line, but he shot that right down. I imagine she was non-plussed. Brave man, to hit that sacred cow with a baseball bat.
I think if Freeman Dyson were commenting now, with the extreme weather events, he might change his view of the effect of carbon dioxide on climate. It's no longer the predictions from a model. Reducing carbon dioxide to pre-industrial levels is is no way a threat to vegetation. I think he's rather dogmatic in his assessment here.
8:29 Truth bomb. But don't worry climate alarmists can disregard him because he's an old european male.
Pete is never wrong On the contrary, they seem to disregard him due to their intolerance to criticism which disqualifies them from the title of scientists.
@Pete is never wrong You'd have to take it up with Dyson about the individuals to whom he's referring and whether it is generalization.
What I can tell you is idea suppression in science is well established, and very often motivated by politics and personal gain. (czcams.com/video/QxnkGymKuuI/video.html ) (16:39 Weinstein)
I appreciate your diplomatic response. Indeed knowledge always triumphs if the the timescale is long enough.
Aww that'll be nice, the pre-designed room box, just throw it in close the door, some chunks explode into the room & grow.
I hope we grow an energy grid for moving into the solar system.
If we grow our ships, that'll certainly speed everything up, we can use microwave transmitters to transfer energy about the place easily, or who knows, maybe we'll end up using some organic self maintaining ganglial chains that somehow incorporate into themselves superconductivity.
here's another thought, we grow a brain on that scale as well..... Imagine that, the sun turned conscious, essentially, the organism we engineer could, over time incorporate the sun into itself, so, essentially, I want to see all this happen, whole star systems could become mobile by this.
Just permeate the space with soupy strings of biological super strong chains, hah.
We'll probably find better things for long term survival, but, we're probably going to have matter rearrangement by then, which solves resources for every1, which could end war, well, until the next energy crisis, whatever form that could take, so really my point is, what's the point of life after you no longer need to work for money for survival????
Sounds like just enjoying life, exploring this insatiable curiosity, oh, & filing the universe with peace would be nice, I suppose war & suffering could seem just as fair to spread as peace, I mean, if there's no point to life anymore except what you want......
It's going to be seriously interesting to be a historian then, history's just going to be interesting in this period full stop
Either way, growing a fleet of enormous starships, that could work, get us to the next star before the next century as we plan the colonisation of our local cluster, The scales of the ships we could have grown, holy shit.
I hope that happens, & without the need for weapons, I'll be sad if we do end up taking war with us, I can't see how that is at all workable, especially if the Light barrier is never broken.
AI's could accelerate us straight into this next era across the next century, I can't get over some of the thing's we'll have in just 10 years, holy christ then 20......
Just had another thought, I've always thought about technologically engineering the Dyson(Stapleton) Sphere with self building droids n that, growing it well, just imagine the dynamic control of the entire system this gives
I just read all of these comments. It's extremely interesting to me to see that the earliest ones were even handed, and then the ones down near the bottom took sharp aim at Dyson's climate change answers. Someone found this and went out and rounded up the troops. Just so hilarious to watch you guys run your game. Except it's not really - it's actually pathetic to see people who can't do anything except repeat what they've been told by others. :-|
You really just don't get it. Earth's orbit changes in cycles over long periods. We're currently in what's called an "interglacial." That means things are warm. In a couple thousand years, things are going to be MUCH cooler, and ice could extend all the way down into the northern United states and across most of Europe. We're talking a 15-20 degree Farenheit change here. If that happens, the planet WILL NOT produce the food supplies necessary to support our existing population. There will be a massive, massive "die off," and those people who face starvation are not going to go quietly into the night. There will be planet-wide war. Hell on Earth. I don't think it's even PROVEN that increased CO2 necessarily means increased temperature - your case is weak on that. But let's say it does. Come that ice age, every extra degree of temperature means MILLIONS of humans don't starve. So - take your pick. Would you rather your those people have to vacatethe coastal cities (and they will have DECADES of warning), or would you rather them die of starvation?
You guys have so totally let yourselves be led by the noses for political purposes.
Facts
Kip, with very limited knowledge I agree with you and Id like to expand on it..would you mind telling me where I can read more about this please? Genuine query and Id sincerely appreciate it.
Ok, at thirty seconds, I'm going to make some predictions: 1) finding alien life - we won't. 2) humans in space - solar system only. 3) our energy future - nuclear, with adjunct from renewables. 4) climate change - it's changing. 5) neuroscience - mind == brain. 6) biotech - I don't know.
These predictions are based on the "general impressions" I've gotten from the "PC-ness" of Dyson. I'll edit after I watch and grade myself.
No way for me to prove I haven't cheated, but I haven't.
1) Ok, I wasn't expecting an "I don't know" answer - good for him. That was a great answer and I agree in all respects. I'll take half credit.
2).Good again. He didn't predict interstellar, so that leave solar system. I'll claim a correct answer here.
3) Interesting. I was right about renewables (solar), but surprised to see him bet solar. I was totally wrong re: nuclear. 50% credit.
4) WOW - "the main thing lacking at the moment is humility." My opinion of Dyson just shot up. Zero credit for me on this one. :-|
5) WOW^2 - "it's not just a computer - it does have emotions and feelings." My sentiments exactly. But... zero credit for me.
6) Love his answer here. Shades of Bladerunner, but... we're going to do it anyway, so let's do it HERE instead of somewhere else.
So I wind up with 2 of 6 - that's not terribly good. But it actually is - I'd misjudged Dyson from earlier videos, and I have much better appreciation now. The WOW answers particularly blow me away. This is a man to listen to. He's applying the PRINCIPLES OF SCIENCE to these questions, rather than just parroting the standard mainstream "politically correct" rhetoric. I know this is going to upset a lot of you, but in truth you're just wrong. There's more going on in these areas than you have admitted to yourselves.
You can find alien craft in the skies here: www.eceti.org . They have an annual conference where you can see them; they're humanity's direct ancestors.
Are you okay ?
These days we have the unfortunateness of knowledge that now merges what freeman said in the first few sentences of the interview, that small cells may be the life we find and death of us, as the biotech is pushed to its limits for evil. I agree with you on 1,2, 4, most of 3. Hopefully 6 and 5 don't merge to evil positions as well.
Reducing CO2 emission is actually a good thing. It promote transition to more advance society (efficient lightbulb, efficient building, more efficient power-plant, and technology sharing to 3rd world country), and it made people planted more tree (carbon credit scheme). So, regardless of whether people disagree with climate-change or not, they should support the CO2 reduction effort because its good.
Freeman Dyson in other hand seems to care much about how good the CO2 is to plants.
Did you even listen to what he said? How far would you like to reduce CO2? Reduce it too far and the plants die, and then we die. CO2 is NOT a "poison." It's just a gas that we actually do NEED some of. That said, the amount is going up, not down. That's undeniable. But we don't really have a clear model that tells us what the temperature effects of that will be, and we also don't even really know what the optimum temperature should be. In a few thousand years (if you even care about your descendants), we'll be in an ice age brought about by orbital dynamics. If we have arranged a higher temperature, we'll likely be very glad.
He was tired during this interview. He was never a great scientist, he was better, he was an honest scientist. I would have liked to have been his conversational friend...
He's seeing basically the same future that visionaries saw in the 1970's. Or even the 50's. He's 2-3 generations behind on all those questions.
Well, we haven't DONE any of them. They remain the next steps. That's not HIS problem. Geez.
I was shocked at how wrong he was about shale gas, CO2, and climate change. The effects are more than additional greenery.
It is the speed of change that is most devastating.
he was right about those things.
Freeman Dyson is likely to be even more shocked at how poorly informed about mathematical models and CO2 are those who are using those models to predict something as complex as climate. Cheers.
@ james j YOU were shocked?! You little , insignifiant, full of yourself, silly wanker! 🤣🤣🤣
So, where have you getting your information? Have you thought any of these things through yourself (with - shudder - calculations), or are you just "taking a vote" from the scientific community, checking your political compass, and deciding?
Mr. Dyson spoke the truth about Climate Experts.
Carbon..... WHAT about the environmental damage of the toxic gases and particles that come with carbon dioxide?!?!
Alex F What toxic gases and particles are you referring to? Carbon Dioxide is ...1 Carbon atom and 2 atoms of Oxygen...that's it.
Cargo Master
[...] emissions include over 40 substances that are listed as hazardous air pollutants and 15 of them are listed as carcinogenic for humans. [.. .]
This is just a random article, I'm sure there's more!
www.yourformula.eu/internalposts/exhaust-gases-what-impact-on-health/
Many things can be disputed, but I wonder about 2 pure scientific points:
1. Microbes can / could not start life, because they can not reproduce, they need cells for that, and such cells need to have ribosomes which can read the microb's genetic code. So microbes found would evident a multi-cell civilization (existing or dead), but not the way it is described that "first there were microbes and then multicell organisms.
2. The statement that less organisms use CO2, the more they use water H2O, which leads to deserts... How does it work? Is there evidence for that? I always thought that you need a certain constant proportion between CO2 and H2O to produce C6O6H6 rings in the middle of organic fuel and you can never replace CO2 by H2O. More over for desert to exist there many climate conditions, I never thought they can be created by water-hungry plants. Is there evidence to that anywhere?
A brilliant physicist, I'm generally a great admirer of his, and enjoy hearing his thinking. But comes across as a bit of an old fool in relation to climate change. He's right it's a complex topic - but the basic idea of dumping greatly increased levels of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and the huge impacts of that - is not. There is little doubt it will create a huge disruption to climate. (Where I would agree with him is if he argued that working out the precise consequences of that are difficult - but that's not the point he's making). There is very strong evidence available on this - which he clearly hasn't studied (or he wouldn't make the comments he does). He's right of course that we must be willing to listen to contrary viewpoints - but they need to be assessed on the quality of their case. Professor Dyson sadly seems not to have put the work in on looking at the evidence already available on this topic. I should add I did research on this for four years, so am not without some knowledge of this topic. Now working in a completely different field of science, so my livelihood is not dependent on sticking to the 'consensus' - there is such strong agreement among climate scientists because the evidence is very strong, not because of some conspiracy!
Professor Dyson is not denying Human made climate change he is denying Climate- Apocalypse.
Every rational Human being knows there will be no climate apocalypse. There have been conditions on earth exceeding even the worst case scenario warming predicted by alarmists. During those times Earth was a a tropical Paradise and not a dead desert-planet. More Co2 in the atmosphere directly correlates with the amount of Biomass on the planet. We had conditions of 4000 parts per million of co2 in the atmosphere and an average Temperature of 25 degrees C.. And here we are heads exploding because we have reached 400ppm.
Yeah, well Arthur Clarke did warn us about the hazards of listening to elderly scientists who are gradually losing it before he we exactly this direction himself. Living in the American midwest and looking at long term trends all we need is to look at the fields covered with weeds due to the soil being too wet to plow in the spring, same problem harvesting in the fall. These are not outliers, just sad realities right in front of our noses.
His understanding of climate change matches that of countless scientists, engineers and economists today.
Your livelihood depends on continual investment and innovation in the oil and gas industry, shale presently.
Within 80 years, humans will have to scale energy production 100x from today. Oil and gas will be doing most of the scaling for the next 30-40 of those. After that, it’ll be a scaling limit on the energy oil and gas can produce when compared to a better and more scalable energy source. At the moment, only next gen nuclear fission (non water cooled) is on the horizon. Maybe something else will come along.
You don’t have to like this, but it’s fact
She obviously did not know he's got a controversial view on climate change. Really dumb of her to not have researched her interviewer
Yes - she tried to salvage that, but he shot her right down a second time. Hilarious.
7:50 the mans nuts.
Title change: "Famed Physicist Freeman Dyson Knows Nothing About Climate Change"
yes pretty sad about his "view" of the climate.
2001lextalionis Actually, it's sad that both of you are brainwashed into knowing so much that simply is not true.
Cargo Master saying its not true does not make it so. The beauty of this is that eventually one position will be proven right and the other not. I can live with being wrong about climate change if it is indeed `something else`. Can you ? Ocean acidification is a concern too. Is that false as well ?
Can we please have climate scientists talk about climate science, and not someone who worked for the government and corporate companies?
The "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" is your "scientific authority" on the subject. But yes, let's not have people who work for the government talk about climate.
@@topturkey278 let's let people who would be disadvantaged if we did something about climate change, talk about it.
@@topturkey278 and let's also observe their propaganda
@@aishwariyasweety2433 John Christy and Roy Spencer together invented the satellite temperature record. Watch their talks and Senate testimonies and point out the propaganda. They both have said if you speak out against the party line you get punished.
Bill Grey, having practically invented hurricane forecasting, look at what he had to say about losing his funding for being a heretic.
Richard Lindzen, possibly the most decorated atmospheric physicist, echoed the pressure to conform.
Willie Soon was publicly dragged through the mud.
What you're saying is literally "only people I can intimidate in to silence should speak".
What you really mean to say is, "Can we please have only people who agree with me talk about climate change?" And I seriously doubt you have actually formed your own scientific opinions - 99% of people who preach climate change fear are motivated entirely by politics. I could be wrong - you may be a completely sharp person who's studied these things directly. If so, I apologize. But, if not, will you admit it here?
climate denier
Sure, he was. Because ecologism and climate change are an unreason cult in society.
When one man opposes an entire field of experts, we must take what he says in context.
I think that Mr Dyson has not understood that although the earth could adapt to climate change and extra CO2, its the rapidity of the change that is problematic.
I think that solar energy will eventually be used to make petroleum and also remove CO2. Pumping of fossil fuel and its transport will be more expensive then producing it on the spot where it's required. Then the "consumer culture" carbon cycle will be basically taken out of the environment. This should happen around 2070 if Putin doesn't kill us all.
As wrong as the old fart is on this issue, what he says doesn't anger me the way it should. He's inconsequential and somewhat a negative character.
That argument would actually hold if you could rely on all of your experts to be motivated solely by expertise. Unfortunately, that is long since not the case - this is a political war now - not a rigorously scientific debate. In such a situation majority does not make "right." The entire climate debate, at least in the United States, is merely a reflection of the left/right polarization that has descended on us over the last 30 years or so.
I won't be replying to this again - you're basically a lost cause. So if you'd like to get in the last word, go for it. I will close with a question, though, which you can answer in your reply if you wish. Have you done any study and calculation on the climate change issue whatsoever? Yourself? Or are you just listening to what your favored political candidates are saying and parroting it? If the latter, then your opinion is patently WORTHLESS.
When it comes to climate change I am afraid he talks complete nonsense. Nobody is suggesting removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at levels that could cause damage to plants.
That's a continuum. More CO2 == more plants across a wide range. And IF more CO2 == higher temperatures (which we don't really know FOR SURE), then that also equals more plants, because it equals longer growing seasons in northern latitudes. And our population is growing - we're going to need more plants. And in a few thousand years we'll have orbital dynamics bring on the next ice age - and we'll REALLY need higher temperatures in order to feed the planet. Wake up.