I’m surprised Dyson wasn’t more quantitative in that piece. I’ll get back to you. But I think you can do better than Dyson in terms of skeptical critiques.
Dyson doesn't NEED to "be quantitative". His simple statement to the effect that the models DO NOT INCLUDE biological systems is sufficient on its face to discredit them.
When the underlying premise is completely flawed, what need for calculations?? Bad science is bad science.