Next time just upload the continuous uninterrupted interview then offer links like this in the description: 0:49 - Finding Alien Life 4:43 - Humans in Space 6:44 - Our Energy Future ...
Every time I hear a qualified physicist/scientist/geologist talk some sense about CO2 and climate change, a little piece of my trust in science is restored.
You shouldn't trust scientists for the content of their proclamations, but but the evidence they use to substantiate them. Any person can claim to be speaking for science, but nobody is doing it until they demonstrate the evidence. The question isn't "Should we trust science" (we should and can), but "Who is doing science correctly and when?"
Andrew Brown You are correct. I should have used "scientists" in place of "science" but I blame the environment scientists are studying science in more. Sure, too many scientists are keeping quiet on certain issues and are suspiciously selective on their choice of evidence but it's a result of the system of scientific study being corrupt. A corrupt system will produce corrupt results. When scientists funding or career advancement is a condition of coming to a particular conclusion and only including evidence supporting that conclusion, we have a problem which bad science is the symptom of and not the cause.
Fobs And where to these climate "scientists" get their data from? I find it laughable that climate scientists are the only one's qualified to interpret the data provided by geologists and how CO2 affected the environment in the past when it's the earth scientists with decades of experience studying the subject who are the ones with credibility and real world not theoretical evidence. (Professor Ian Clark for example) /watch?v=hDKSkBrI-TM. Climate is physics based and physics is mostly high level math.
Around 10:35 I think it is clear what sort of a gambler and megalomaniac professor Dyson seems to be. He correctly analyses CO2 to be a fertilizer for plants and vegetation and then proceeds arguing that the more fertilizer we add to the environment the better. Apparently, concepts such as "eutrophication" don't feature inside Dyson's vocabulary. In other videos on youtube, prof. Dyson admits he dislikes the current climate and wants to use CO2 and climate change to "make the Sahara green again": he is a dangerous romantic, thinking earth is the ideal test-bed for terraforming experiments. Obviously, he does not pause in his thought-experiments to think about people who don't share his colonialist attitude and do not want to forsake and desertify their current home to move elsewhere. By saying "by not emitting more CO2 we're doing huge damage to vegetation" he denies the nature of the recent climatic record and "the-facts-on-the-gound": it is the recent low-carbon environment wherein humanity was allowed to prosper.
So he says we do not understand the climate proper yet. So the solution is: Let's go ahead and blow the last fossil fuels in the air, so then we know? I don't get how you can argue whether from an economic, social of political perspective in favor of a long-term fossil fuel use, if you are not paid by the few who are making the profits from this specific business. It doesn't seem reasonable to me if longterm, macroeconomic prosperity is a thing you care about. Best Regards from Germany with the "Energiewende"!
Sorry, but knowing ageing effects on human, the person is not as bright as he was when he was in his middle age. Also, his view on climate change shows how wrong his predictions might be.
Unfortunately this bit about climate change not happening is wrong. I'm surprised that he would make such a mistake. Apparently he doesn't know the science. videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?Live=14490&bhcp=1
Everytime I see Dyson, I always think about vacuum cleaners.
Next time just upload the continuous uninterrupted interview then offer links like this in the description:
0:49 - Finding Alien Life
4:43 - Humans in Space
6:44 - Our Energy Future
...
the interactive buttons during the video are a great idea!
The interview was great, but the table of contents was overused
Every time I hear a qualified physicist/scientist/geologist talk some sense about CO2 and climate change, a little piece of my trust in science is restored.
You shouldn't trust scientists for the content of their proclamations, but but the evidence they use to substantiate them. Any person can claim to be speaking for science, but nobody is doing it until they demonstrate the evidence. The question isn't "Should we trust science" (we should and can), but "Who is doing science correctly and when?"
In what sense is a physicist and mathematician qualified to talk about the climate?
ok you moron
Andrew Brown You are correct. I should have used "scientists" in place of "science" but I blame the environment scientists are studying science in more. Sure, too many scientists are keeping quiet on certain issues and are suspiciously selective on their choice of evidence but it's a result of the system of scientific study being corrupt. A corrupt system will produce corrupt results. When scientists funding or career advancement is a condition of coming to a particular conclusion and only including evidence supporting that conclusion, we have a problem which bad science is the symptom of and not the cause.
Fobs And where to these climate "scientists" get their data from? I find it laughable that climate scientists are the only one's qualified to interpret the data provided by geologists and how CO2 affected the environment in the past when it's the earth scientists with decades of experience studying the subject who are the ones with credibility and real world not theoretical evidence. (Professor Ian Clark for example) /watch?v=hDKSkBrI-TM. Climate is physics based and physics is mostly high level math.
Awesome interview. Thanks.
"aliens don't exist" will be the next "earth is flat"
How about... We live inside the planet??
For those who want to watch from start to finish the video menu screen is very annoying and disrupting!!!
I have a passion for educated speculation, so this is right up my alley. Thanks IEEE Spectrum.
growing materials? Isn't that something like 3-d printing
Super chicken ARISE!
This might be possible once AI becomes more integrated into our technology
Bio energy? Fusion? Superconductivity? No?
That'll do, pig. That'll do.
You didn't ask the right questions! - Are Aliens demons?
Around 10:35 I think it is clear what sort of a gambler and megalomaniac professor Dyson seems to be. He correctly analyses CO2 to be a fertilizer for plants and vegetation and then proceeds arguing that the more fertilizer we add to the environment the better. Apparently, concepts such as "eutrophication" don't feature inside Dyson's vocabulary. In other videos on youtube, prof. Dyson admits he dislikes the current climate and wants to use CO2 and climate change to "make the Sahara green again": he is a dangerous romantic, thinking earth is the ideal test-bed for terraforming experiments. Obviously, he does not pause in his thought-experiments to think about people who don't share his colonialist attitude and do not want to forsake and desertify their current home to move elsewhere. By saying "by not emitting more CO2 we're doing huge damage to vegetation" he denies the nature of the recent climatic record and "the-facts-on-the-gound": it is the recent low-carbon environment wherein humanity was allowed to prosper.
So he says we do not understand the climate proper yet. So the solution is: Let's go ahead and blow the last fossil fuels in the air, so then we know?
I don't get how you can argue whether from an economic, social of political perspective in favor of a long-term fossil fuel use, if you are not paid by the few who are making the profits from this specific business.
It doesn't seem reasonable to me if longterm, macroeconomic prosperity is a thing you care about.
Best Regards from Germany with the "Energiewende"!
Sorry, but knowing ageing effects on human, the person is not as bright as he was when he was in his middle age.
Also, his view on climate change shows how wrong his predictions might be.
Unfortunately this bit about climate change not happening is wrong. I'm surprised that he would make such a mistake. Apparently he doesn't know the science. videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?Live=14490&bhcp=1
There is no future if money and country exist.For more information watch"the venus project" and Jacque Fresco's speaks.