Freeman Dyson on vegetation and carbon-dioxide

Here is Freeman Dyson discussing what he thinks is important scientifically in the global warming and CO2 question. It starts at around 2 min 40 seconds into the video.

Check out the photo gallery on this page.

Advertisements

4 comments

  1. hro001

    Excellent find, Shub!

    Have you ever noticed that people like Dyson and Lindzen (obviously from the pre-post-normal school of science) are always so much calmer and more reasoned (and reasonable) in their interviews and presentations?

    And that even a layperson such as I can understand – or at least get the gist of – what they’re saying.

    Unlike the IPCC In-crowd and its acolytes and lesser-lights, the Lindzens and Dysons have no need of “science communicators” to explain “the science” they are discussing.

    Funny that, eh?!

  2. Shub Niggurath

    A good scientist is a good ‘communicator’ (whatever that means).

    The problem with the global warming people is that they have defined good communication as the ability to completely convey the message you are trying to get across. This is the exact opposite of good communication.

  3. Robert

    Interesting subject. All vegetation fixes carbon into biomass. One would think that an increase in atmospheric CO2 would result in vegetation creating more biomass.When you think of all the terrestrial vegetation on earth and add phytoplankton and other aquatic autotrophs found in the oceans, the capacity to fix carbon is huge. Do we really know the capacity of all these organisms to fix carbon? Surely the earth is an incredibly fertile place for life and has shown an amazing ability to respond to changing conditions. How well is this modelled?

  4. Shub Niggurath

    It can be quite contradictory, isn’t it?

    On the one hand, we are told that ‘forest management’ and planting of trees can solve the carbon problem, and on the other hand, nothing but attacking the ‘problem’ at its source i.e., fossil fuels, will solve the problem.

    Which one is it?

    If planting more trees and cordoning off existing forests via REDD is not enough to overcome the man-made CO2 deluge, why do it then? It becomes merely a vast land-grab.

    If planting more trees and cordoning off existing forests via REDD is enough to overcome the deluge, then why seek to cut down on emissions at all?