Green ‘drivel’ exposed 0 The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate

[skookumchuck]

Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change.
The implications were extraordinary.
Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory.
Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic.
His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other scientific organizations.
Lovelock’s invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental movement.
Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.


Green

 

[Praxius]

Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.

He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.

It only takes a couple of minutes to spread fear and ignorance, but take years for that damage to be corrected.

It's nice to see that in the last few months/years that many people are finally coming forward and admitting their mistakes & falling back to using common sense.

(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.

“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”

^ Sounds very familiar..... sounds a lot like something I've said a while back about GlobalWarmongers acting like Religious Extremists. If they're so-called scientists, they should be open to their "findings" to be challenged and questioned as that's how science works.... yet so many when questioned about their findings & "Beliefs" end up getting angry, throwing up their arms and lashing out at you for questioning them, when you shouldn't be questioning them at all because they're so-called "Scientists"... you should instead, just be doing what they tell you to do, otherwise you're some defender of Big Oil or some other baseless crap.

(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”

I like this guy already.

Rolling back up in the report a bit:

....Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.”......

^ Which is why I have continually believed that Computer-Based Climate Models & Projections are inaccurate, can not account for every major factor and are un-reliable sources of information that should never be used as "Proof" or "Factual Evidence" for anything. You can use them as guides or references for something else you're playing around with, but if you want to make a claim/argument that you think is right and decide to use these "Models" as some sort of evidence, you should be laughed at & tossed out on the curb, ass first.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change.
The implications were extraordinary.
Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory.
Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic.
His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other scientific organizations.
Lovelock’s invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental movement.
Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.


Green

Absolute rubbish from beginning to end; and typical of Goldstein who would not know a truth if it bit him where he could see it coming - not just in the other place.

First, Lovelcok is not a "father" of global warming. He is a "Johnny-come-lately in that and appears to be a senile old man now. Lovelock has never done any research on climate and, just a few years ago wa predicting that Global Warming would lead tot he near extinction of the human species: projecting that no more than 100 million would be survive.

The rest of the piece is unmitigated tripe with not a fact in it.

 

[Praxius]

"Lovelock’s invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental movement."

^ Seems pretty valid to call him the Godfather, unless you can refute this claim or prove someone else made up a system to do the above before he did.

You speak about the interview/report being "unmitigated tripe with not a fact in it" yet, I have yet to see any useful "Facts" in the Global Warmongering Case since the beginning.

Those who counter the claims towards Global Warming, regardless if they're fellow scientists, self-educated on the subject, or otherwise informed on the subject, are always trivialized by Global Warmongers as being senile or scientists, in the pockets of Big Oil, ill-informed or just plain crazy..... yet those same people won't bother to refute their counter arguments by showing how & why they're wrong, they just call them names and trivialize their arguments & that's it.

Those against the theory of Global Warming don't have to prove their case because their position is that it's non-existent..... those making the claim that Global Warming exists and that it's man-made are the ones in the position where they need to prove their claims that it exists..... and so far, I still have yet to see anything worthwhile proving their case.

And while I wait, more and more people who used to back the Global Warming Theory have come out admitting they were wrong, or that they exaggerated their position, or they used things as evidence that were not evidence, nor proven, nor factual.... while there have been other reports showing that some documents that disproved their positions were either kept under wraps or discarded so they appeared to have little doubt towards their claims.

^ Pseudo Science like this and Pseudo Scientists who act like this with their "Findings" should be burned at the stake.

Yeah, a few years ago he was promoting the fears that the world was basically going to end due to GW..... and he even admits that in the above report.... yet because he's one of the few people left in the world who's not afraid to admit he was wrong about something.... suddenly he's a crazy, senile old fool?

I guess the George Bush mindset of "Stay the Course" has leaked into the Sciences.

 

[L Gilbert]

Yeah, there's just as much BS flung around by one side as the other.

 

[captain morgan]

Good OP skookumchuck.... Interesting read

 

[taxslave]

Absolute rubbish from beginning to end; and typical of Goldstein who would not know a truth if it bit him where he could see it coming - not just in the other place.

First, Lovelcok is not a "father" of global warming. He is a "Johnny-come-lately in that and appears to be a senile old man now. Lovelock has never done any research on climate and, just a few years ago wa predicting that Global Warming would lead tot he near extinction of the human species: projecting that no more than 100 million would be survive.

The rest of the piece is unmitigated tripe with not a fact in it.

Just like your post.

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change.
The implications were extraordinary.
Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory.
Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic.
His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other scientific organizations.
Lovelock’s invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental movement.
Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.


Green

While Lovelock is a brilliant theorist, he's not a climatologist and claiming everything isn't as bad as some state is nonsense.

The loss of the cryosphere alone which is almost a dead certainty with ever increasing amounts of atmospheric CO2 is going to have devastating effects on water and food security worldwide as it will with sea level rise and loss of coastal habitat which is home to hundreds of millions of people.

Coral bleaching and the eventual loss of much of the coral reefs systems on the planet will seriously impact the ocean environment which is already under huge stress from pollution and industrial fishing. Coral reefs have already experienced an over 16% decline in recent decades predicted to go as high as 90% by the end of the century. They are associated with about a quarter of the ocean species.

Coral bleaching - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ScienceDirect.com - Marine Policy - Tuna longline catch rates in the Indian Ocean: Did industrial fishing result in a 90% rapid decline in the abundance of large predatory species?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)

Climate change will also drive many alpine and arctic species into extinction as their habitat simply disappears.

At the same time we're significantly changing the ecology over most of planet through industrial and domestic activities, we're also altering the basic radiative balance of the planet...and this is supposed to have little or no effect?

 

[Ron in Regina]

While Lovelock is a brilliant theorist, he's not a climatologist and claiming everything isn't as bad as some state is nonsense.

While Lovelock still believes that AGW is very real, but that there is just
more time to find solutions.....was he a Climatologist before he made
that statement, but now isn't one?

Pioneering climatologist James Lovelock interview - YouTube

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

While Lovelock still believes that AGW is very real, but that there is just
more time to find solutions.....was he a Climatologist before he made
that statement, but now isn't one?

Pioneering climatologist James Lovelock interview - YouTube

He's a theorist, the people who are actually out there observing the changes in the environment and modeling the future impacts are very concerned. There are non-recoverable tipping points that once passed will completely alter the global environment and most likely make the viability of our species let alone that of modern civilization highly questionable.

I'm not sure what time it is that Lovelack is talking about, but if he's refering to what we're doing now as in any way acceptable in terms of preserving the conditions that allow a stable ecology then he's way off the mark.

Climate change is just one of many human activities driving many ecosystems to the brink of collapse, what it does do is join all the human generated stressors together on a global scale.

 

[Kakato]

Sounds like we got a couple years left yet Ron before the Apocalypse.

 

[skookumchuck]

One of the great problems obviously is that there is ample evidence to suggest that we have been cooling for 10 years. That is an overall observation but does not have an impact on peoples thoughts due to regional weather observations by the average person.
The positions of both advocates and deniers are so polarized that even hard evidence which supports either theory is immediately and savagely decried by the other side. An example Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling - Forbes

 

[Ron in Regina]

One of the great problems obviously is that there is ample evidence to suggest that we have been cooling for 10 years. That is an overall observation but does not have an impact on peoples thoughts due to regional weather observations by the average person.
The positions of both advocates and deniers are so polarized that even hard evidence which supports either theory is immediately and savagely decried by the other side. An example Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling - Forbes

Polorized, as in extreme ends of the scale, with most folks in
the middle shaking their heads at both ends & their rhetoric.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

One of the great problems obviously is that there is ample evidence to suggest that we have been cooling for 10 years. That is an overall observation but does not have an impact on peoples thoughts due to regional weather observations by the average person.
The positions of both advocates and deniers are so polarized that even hard evidence which supports either theory is immediately and savagely decried by the other side. An example Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling - Forbes

Therre is no such evidence and, as an example of the money that is all the deniers have, Several climate scientists wrote a response to Forbes about that "article;" as lying and mischievous piece as has ever seen print.

Forbes refused to pront the rebuttal: a rebuttal signed by several of the most prominent scientists.

There is no hard evidence supporting the deniers: there is no soft evidence either unless you call what has happened to Lovelock's brain soft evidence.

And there has been no cooling over the last ten years. That decade is the warmest on record. About .14C warmer than the previous decade.

 

[captain morgan]

Ya just gotta love it when a group demands proof of a negative.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

There are no sides in this and, therefore, no middle. There is the theory agreed to by all researching climate scientists, supported by their models and, now, conformed by observation. They also have the immutable Laws of Physics in support.

The other side consists of a few rogue scientists who are all paid frauds since they have no research to support their "scepticism." There are certain moneyed interests. And there are madmen like Stephen Harper. That is all and it is not a side.

The evidence is incontrovertible. It is as solid as that our system is heliocentric and the deniers are like the Papacy of Galileo. They know, as did the church, that they are wrong but, for political reasons, money, or for control of the masses, they refuse to allow the truth to come out unsullied.

The Heartland Institute as referenced in one of the pieces above, is entirely fossil fuel financed in its denials. The conference referred to was once written about by climate scientists as, "what if a scientific conference is held and no scientists come." That was it. Not a single scientist with any research attended.

And, a no-no in science. theu paid any scientist who would give a talk $10,000 to do so. If you were following eents, you wouod know that the Heartland Institute is now on the ropes as mucyh of its funding has been withdrawn with the revelations by Glieck of its fraudulent practises.

 

[skookumchuck]

There are no sides in this and, therefore, no middle. There is the theory agreed to by all researching climate scientists, supported by their models and, now, conformed by observation. They also have the immutable Laws of Physics in support.

The other side consists of a few rogue scientists who are all paid frauds since they have no research to support their "scepticism." There are certain moneyed interests. And there are madmen like Stephen Harper. That is all and it is not a side.

The evidence is incontrovertible. It is as solid as that our system is heliocentric and the deniers are like the Papacy of Galileo. They know, as did the church, that they are wrong but, for political reasons, money, or for control of the masses, they refuse to allow the truth to come out unsullied.

The Heartland Institute as referenced in one of the pieces above, is entirely fossil fuel financed in its denials. The conference referred to was once written about by climate scientists as, "what if a scientific conference is held and no scientists come." That was it. Not a single scientist with any research attended.

And, a no-no in science. theu paid any scientist who would give a talk $10,000 to do so. If you were following eents, you wouod know that the Heartland Institute is now on the ropes as mucyh of its funding has been withdrawn with the revelations by Glieck of its fraudulent practises.

You constantly call those who do not agree with your view "deniers" which given your position, could apply to you also. When one is determined to somehow prove there is no merit on one side of a disagreement involving not just a few but a great many how can you expect to be taken seriously?

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

One of the great problems obviously is that there is ample evidence to suggest that we have been cooling for 10 years. That is an overall observation but does not have an impact on peoples thoughts due to regional weather observations by the average person.
The positions of both advocates and deniers are so polarized that even hard evidence which supports either theory is immediately and savagely decried by the other side. An example Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling - Forbes

how about some peer-reviewed sources...otherwise this is just more of the same hand-waving being done by the climate change denial industry.

Polorized, as in extreme ends of the scale, with most folks in
the middle shaking their heads at both ends & their rhetoric.

Extreme ends of what scale.

The science behind greenhouse gases goes back over two hundred years, we've known for over 150 years that carbon dioxide was one of the most important gases for influencing the radiative balance of the atmosphere, for over 100 years that dramatically increasing the concentration of CO2 has profound consequenes for the global climate and in recent decades we've seen the stark effects of those changes in their early stages.

This isn't about theory or opinion anymore, it's about as well established as science gets, which is why it takes an entire industry to confuse the public on responsible actions to avoid the most serious consequences.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

While Lovelock still believes that AGW is very real, but that there is just
more time to find solutions.....was he a Climatologist before he made
that statement, but now isn't one?

Pioneering climatologist James Lovelock interview - YouTube

He's a climatologist until he speaks heressy against the global warming theory. Once he does that he is a theorist or some other piece of tripe that can be kicked to the curb.

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

He's a climatologist until he speaks heressy against the global warming theory. Once he does that he is a theorist or some other piece of tripe that can be kicked to the curb.

He's a guy that created a theory that the entire planet acts as a single entity which is as much new age philosophy as it is science.

The global biosphere is highly complex and interactive, it's not as anthropormorphized as Lovelock would have us believe.

He may have decided on his own that Gaia isn't as angry as he first thought, that still doesn't change the serious consequences of changing the Earth's radiative balance at a rate rarely seen in the geological history and one that will almost certainly drive many species and entire ecosystems into extinction, the rate at which is up to us.