Brilliant minds have the ability to view a complex set of problems,and reduce it to its obvious conclusion (its irreducible part)as far as we know.And it is an important part of science and especially mathematical physics of the part to where we cannot reduce the equation further.
In biological systems there is NO reducible algorithm ( The complexity described cannot be described more concisely then by writing down all the observed phenomena) eg Monod 1972 IE 10^27 DEGREES OF FREEDOM.
A standard weather forecast has around 10^12 DOF but excludes ocean coupling.
There is no mathematical theory of climate.Hence we cannot not reduce the climate to a set of mathematical qualities.Hence the conundrum with "climate models"This has been understood for a long time eg Kolgomorov 1956 Landau 1965
In an interesting article in the NYT there is an intersting perspective on Freeman Dyson
FOR MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY the eminent physicist Freeman Dyson has quietly resided in Princeton, N.J., on the wooded former farmland that is home to his employer, the Institute for Advanced Study, this country’s most rarefied community of scholars. Lately, however, since coming “out of the closet as far as global warming is concerned,” as Dyson sometimes puts it, there has been noise all around him. Chat rooms, Web threads, editors’ letter boxes and Dyson’s own e-mail queue resonate with a thermal current of invective in which Dyson has discovered himself variously described as “a pompous twit,” “a blowhard,” “a cesspool of misinformation,” “an old coot riding into the sunset” and, perhaps inevitably, “a mad scientist.” Dyson had proposed that whatever inflammations the climate was experiencing might be a good thing because carbon dioxide helps plants of all kinds grow.
IT WAS FOUR YEARS AGO that Dyson began publicly stating his doubts about climate change. Speaking at the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future at Boston University, Dyson announced that “all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated.” Since then he has only heated up his misgivings, declaring in a 2007 interview with Salon.com that “the fact that the climate is getting warmer doesn’t scare me at all” and writing in an essay for The New York Review of Books, the left-leaning publication that is to gravitas what the Beagle was to Darwin, that climate change has become an “obsession” — the primary article of faith for “a worldwide secular religion” known as environmentalism. Among those he considers true believers, Dyson has been particularly dismissive of Al Gore, whom Dyson calls climate change’s “chief propagandist,” and James Hansen, the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and an adviser to Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Dyson accuses them of relying too heavily on computer-generated climate models that foresee a Grand Guignol of imminent world devastation as icecaps melt, oceans rise and storms and plagues sweep the earth, and he blames the pair’s “lousy science” for “distracting public attention” from “more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet.”
We can predict that the pseudo intellectuals will have the "knitting needles out" as they bey for his head.
However like most brilliant men foresight is forearmed and the most complete "defensive strategy" and mitigation policy that was written some 33 years ago is still public record.Preceding the IPCC and Hansen so simple as often solutions to complex problems are.
CAN WE CONTROL THE CARBON DIOXIDE
IN THE ATMOSPHERE?
FREEMAN J. DYSON?
institute for Energy Analysis, Oak Ridge, TN 37830. U.S.A
(Received 26 July 1976)
Abstract-The carbon dioxide generated by burning fossil fuels can theoretically be controlled by growing trees. Quantitative estimates are made of the size and cost of a plant-growing program designed to halt the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere