Skip to content

Green Fanatics Outraged Over National Public Radio Interview With Freeman Dyson

National Public Radio (NPR)

Freeman Dyson is one of the most famous names in science, and sometimes one of the most controversial. Dyson is 91 and was one of the British scientists who helped win World War II.

He spent most years since as a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. He has won the Max Planck Medal and the Templeton Prize, and written important, oft-quoted books including Disturbing the Universe and The Scientist as Rebel, and newspaper articles that inspire both admiration and debate.

His latest book is Dreams of Earth and Sky, a collection of essays on everything from the history of England’s Royal Society to current hot button issues like climate change and information technology — including, in one essay, the possibility of bioengineering human beings the way people now breed flowers. He tells NPR’s Scott Simon that there are many different reasons for that kind of project.

Dreams of Earth and Sky

Interview Highlights

On bioengineering

You have people who are breeding flowers just for fun because it’s beautiful. You make new kinds of tulips and new kinds of roses and you can make new kinds of animals in the same way. Also you can think of preventing hereditary diseases, which are some of the worst, so there are all sorts of different reasons why you might like to do some genetic engineering, either on humans or animals or plants. Each case has to be looked at carefully on its merits, and certainly one set of rules is not going to be applicable to everyone.

On his global warming skepticism

What I would like to emphasize is that human actions have very large effects on the ecology, which have nothing to do with the climate. Carbon dioxide is what we’re producing in big quantities and putting into the atmosphere. This happens to be a very good fertilizer for all kinds of vegetation, good for wildlife, good for agricultural production, so it has many benefits. And this is something you have together with the climate effects, which are much less certain, so it’s a question of drawing a balance. I’m just saying I don’t understand it and neither does anybody else. I’m skeptical because I don’t think the science is at all clear, and unfortunately a lot of the experts really believe they understand it, and maybe have the wrong answer.

Of course [the weather] concerns me, but of course, we don’t know much about the causes of those things. We don’t even know for sure whether it is more variable than it used to be. I mean the worst disasters were the Ice Ages, and nobody really understands for sure the causes of Ice Ages, so I’m not saying the climate disasters aren’t real, I’m merely saying we don’t know how to prevent them. […]


Why are you giving this doddering dinasaur free advertising for his upcoming book? Why is NPR giving ANY airtime and credibility to a Climate Change sceptic?

To give the correct balance, that would be 33 climatologists and expert science communicators before we hear from another denier. For NPR to let that fly unchecked was grossly irresponsible. And at this point, irresponsibility on this issue is going to look criminal in retrospect.

Full interview & comments