James Lovelock: Humans are too stupid...

James Lovelock: Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change

There are 37 comments on the www.guardian.co.uk story from Apr 3, 2010, titled James Lovelock: Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change. In it, www.guardian.co.uk reports that:

In his first in-depth interview since the theft of UEA emails, the scientist blames inertia and democracy for lack of action. Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change, according to the British scientist James Lovelock.

One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is "modern democracy", he added. "Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.guardian.co.uk.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#1 Apr 3, 2010
Sorry, James, humans are stupid if they think they can change climate except in the most minuscule way, so in a way you're right, not only can they not prevent it, they also have difficulty causing it.
The whole idea of controlling climate is one of mankind's oldest dreams, so if we've changed it in the slightest way, we've partially achieved the dream.

All hail humans, masters of the universe.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#2 Apr 3, 2010
It is very telling that he wants to suspend demoracy to save the climate and still considers the 2007 IPCC report factual dispite all the news about all the errors contained therein.

Even if he was right then humans are already causing climate change which means he was wrong with the very first sentance.
Richard

Sydney, Australia

#3 Apr 3, 2010
"Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science," he said.

Perhaps he should read his own words.
LessHypeMoreFact

Woodstock, Canada

#4 Apr 3, 2010
I am not so sure that it is stupidity. It is more a function of 'perception' in terms that the denialists refuse to 'look at' things that they fear. What they don't see can't hurt them psychology.

And too much worry over trivialities can wear a person down so much effort is put towards 'ignoring' any threat that is not blatant and proximate.

The problem is really that AGW is a 'slow motion' crisis and cannot be perceived as 'proximate'. It is like the frog in the pot that is slowly warming. He is cooked before he realises that it is just a bit too late.

And since much of the most serious risks are forecast for their progenies lifetimes, the issue becomes one of selfishness, refusing to make a little effort today when the benefit will mostly go to future generations.
LessHypeMoreFact

Woodstock, Canada

#6 Apr 4, 2010
Dud Twenties wrote:
Lovelock is a hack SF writer about on the same level as L Ron Hubbard, and seems to be as despotic and anti-human as Hubbard. how anyone takes this buffoon seriously is beyond me.
http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/lovedeten.htm
He has 3 earned degrees in chemistry, medicine and biophyics, and eight honorary degrees. How you think he is a writer of science fiction is beyond me.

"James Lovelock is the author of approximately 200 scientific papers, distributed almost equally among topics in Medicine, Biology, Instrument Science and Geophysiology. He has filed more than 50 patents, mostly for detectors for use in chemical analysis."

As this is commenting on human nature and psychology, he is well qualified.
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#7 Apr 4, 2010
Lovelock will be 91 in July of this year, so in the words of the average AGW warmist, he's an old eccentric fogey who's well past it.
AFAIC, his message is worth taking note of.
Off to a Greenpeace rally via the bottle bank in your eco-car, converted to run on organic carrot juice? Don’t bother. Instead, go for a burn-up in a Ferrari, crank up the heating and wait for the end of the world.

This seems to be the message of James Lovelock, celebrated scientist and creator of the Gaia theory that taught us to think of the planet as a living organism. He declares it is too late to save civilisation as we know it, so save yourself. Find a mountain, perhaps on the island of Cornwall, before the floods arrive — London, he tells me, could be under the North Sea within 50 years.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article...

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#8 Apr 4, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/lovedeten.htm
He has 3 earned degrees in chemistry, medicine and biophyics, and eight honorary degrees. How you think he is a writer of science fiction is beyond me.
"James Lovelock is the author of approximately 200 scientific papers, distributed almost equally among topics in Medicine, Biology, Instrument Science and Geophysiology. He has filed more than 50 patents, mostly for detectors for use in chemical analysis."
As this is commenting on human nature and psychology, he is well qualified.
Sorry but they hand out honorary degrees for just being a big donar or for just being notable. So eight honorary degrees are nothing more than eight wated sheets of paper. If I had a few extra millions I could end up with a honorary degree in climatology. Would that mean you would have to take what I say as though I was a climate scientist.

As for the number of degrees and papers is you forgot how long he has been in the game. Three degrees in that period of time is impressive but the number of papers in a world where it publish or die he has been risking his life way more than he should be.

Patents are not hard to come by. I have several myself. AFter all all you need is a idea and the money to file. I filed a few more for my husband. Like I said it is no problem, just need a idea.
LessHypeMoreFact

Woodstock, Canada

#9 Apr 4, 2010
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry but they hand out honorary degrees for just being a big donar or for just being notable.
As usual, you ignore the three earned degrees. But I will agree with Earthling that his degrees don't make him an 'expert' on politics and at 90, he is respected but not necessarily right.

As you might get from my argument that it isn't 'stupidity' so much as indifference and short term self interest. Of course, on an evolutionary or long term foudnation, that IS stupidity.
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#10 Apr 5, 2010
Alarmists aren't very choosy when it comes to which scientists they believe, the only criteria is that they must agree with them.
That's why a revered scientist like Nils Axel Mörner gets the thumbs down from them.
If he belonged to their church, he would be exalted.

I'm surprised they give much consideration Lovelock's words, because he thinks it's too late to save the human race.
In many ways I agree with him, but probably for a different reason, in that I don't think it's worth saving.
nemm

Newmarket, Canada

#11 Apr 5, 2010
We need to adapt. Take a look at this article The Great Transition: http://www.scribd.com/doc/21656220/The-Great-...
LessHypeMoreFact

Woodstock, Canada

#12 Apr 5, 2010
nemm wrote:
We need to adapt. Take a look at this article The Great Transition: http://www.scribd.com/doc/21656220/The-Great-...
Interesting paper and it illustrates the fact that the primary problem of the modern world is to fit itself IN the world without overstressing resources or going to war for an excessive share of them.

Rampant exploitation of rich and irreplacable resources have come to an end. We now need to adapt to a sustainable life by refining HOW we do things.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#13 Apr 6, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
As usual, you ignore the three earned degrees. But I will agree with Earthling that his degrees don't make him an 'expert' on politics and at 90, he is respected but not necessarily right.
As you might get from my argument that it isn't 'stupidity' so much as indifference and short term self interest. Of course, on an evolutionary or long term foudnation, that IS stupidity.
I have a earned degree and it consided in no small part feeding what the small minds who were awarding the things they wanted to hear. On the other hand I didn't say that his three degrees were not earned just that the eight others were not. After all if you had the money of say Bill Gates and were willing to lavish it on a university you could end up with your name on a rather large building and several degrees.

On the other hand he seems to have avoided publishing since he only has two hundred papers over sixty years.
LessHypeMoreFact

Woodstock, Canada

#14 Apr 6, 2010
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a earned degree and it consided in no small part feeding what the small minds who were awarding the things they wanted to hear.
Sounds like one of those right wing diploma mills, like St. Maries. You must have been a good Bushie to pass there..
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
On the other hand I didn't say that his three degrees were not earned just that the eight others were not.
Earned degeees are just starting points and he obviously used his after graduating.

But your post was to 'diminish' his work by selecting out only the honorary degeees. Be honest.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
After all if you had the money of say Bill Gates and were willing to lavish it on a university you could end up with your name on a rather large building and several degrees.
On the other hand he seems to have avoided publishing since he only has two hundred papers over sixty years.
Depends on how large the studies were. Some well established scientists only publish every few years since they have to work many years to find the material for a major paper.

But as usual, this is just more distraction, as you intended.
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#17 Apr 8, 2010
Dud Twenties, Fat Al's a bozo at 'almost' everything except for knowing how to make money in vast quantities out of any scam going.
So, "fraud" well covers his latest antics.
LessHypeMoreFact

Woodstock, Canada

#18 Apr 8, 2010
Dud Twenties wrote:
<quoted text>anyone who writes stuff about "Gaia" is an SF writer as far as I am concerned.
Fair enough. I find the concept interesting but then I read science fiction..

Otoh, if it not logical to say that his is all he did. He wrote many science papers and you cannot call them science fiction.
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#20 Apr 8, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
I read science fiction..
Which probably explains why you write so much fiction here.
LessHypeMoreFact

Woodstock, Canada

#22 Apr 8, 2010
Earthling wrote:
<quoted text>Which probably explains why you write so much fiction here.
Oh, certainly being open to new ideas and concepts triggered my interest in science itself. But I rarely go to sci-fi movies because I just HAVE to pick apart the crap that passes for science in those.

I mean in Star Trek ( the most recent one ) does anyone understand how any 'black hole' of a few inches size can 'gobble up' a planet in minutes? Or how 'red stuff' can, by any known or even speculative physical process, create a black hole?

And what is with the need for the long chain and drill on the end? Why wouldn't it work just as well from orbit. And why don't the sides of the hole collapse as it moves into the moho where rock flows?

Of course, I love the story line and character development regardless.
LessHypeMoreFact

Woodstock, Canada

#23 Apr 8, 2010
Dud Twenties wrote:
<quoted text>is the famous movie director Al Gore's movie, "An inconvenient truth" , science fiction as well then?
No.Look up its classification ( Documentary ). It is an educational documentary, neither fiction NOR peer reviewed science. The most that can be said is that it got it MOSTLY right.
Dud Twenties wrote:
<quoted text>
I bet you watch that every night!
Who? And why? It doesn't even go as far as current serious science, being somewhat dated.
frank miller

United States

#24 Apr 8, 2010
Oh 'MoreHypeThanFact Toronto Canada #22/#23'! You have absolutely not even the foggiest idea, as with Al Gore, as with Lovelock, as with Hansen, as with the collective IPCC what Science is about! Al Gore's 2004 book, including his 2007 revision, along with his Documentary were totally wrong! As a matter of fact a British Court a couple of years
ago, as you failed to mention, banned many dooms-day scenarios as being political, and thus unfit to be viewed by impressionable high school children!
CO2 or carbon dioxide atmospheric contents, and other green-house gases
have nothing to do with Regional AGW {accelerated Desertification} and regional AGC {accelerated global cooling.. more freezing rains/snows where we don't need them} for the simple FACT that there is no heat shield up there, and CO2 according to every Physics/Chemistry reference books since 1932
to present 2010 has remained between 0.03 % to 0.04% with about 0.0005% increase 35 miles up
in a very rarefied air atmosphere!
That is the Science part everyone missed! But 50 percent Deforested Earth since the last 2000 years of civilization, now thank God stopped no longer
absorbs 674 kg.cal. of Solar heat, causing all the 'problems' roots, and remedy outlined many times on Topix, since 2008, as with my above
post!!
F.M.
LessHypeMoreFact

Woodstock, Canada

#25 Apr 8, 2010
frank miller wrote:
Oh 'MoreHypeThanFact Toronto Canada #22/#23'! You have absolutely not even the foggiest idea, as with Al Gore, as with Lovelock, as with Hansen, as with the collective IPCC what Science is about!
Tell it to the scientists. Maybe they will agree with you that their lifes work is all bunkum.. but probably not..
frank miller wrote:
Al Gore's 2004 book, including his 2007 revision, along with his Documentary were totally wrong!
It was a documentary. It was not precise and in many cases did not explain details well enough. But it was hardly wrong in outline. Nor has anyone said that it was.
frank miller wrote:
As a matter of fact a British Court a couple of years
ago, as you failed to mention, banned many dooms-day scenarios as being political, and thus unfit to be viewed by impressionable high school children!
Lie. It was OKed as course material (even though it was not peer reviewed science itself) with a few points which had to have some 'additional material' to explain them. This can easily be seen by reading the actual judgement.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/200...
"The Defendant does not intend now to continue with the old position, but has already amended the Guidance Note on the website, and stands ready to distribute it in hard copy if my judgment permits. There is no longer therefore any need for relief in respect of the film otherwise than as accompanied by the present Guidance Note."

"In the circumstances, and for those reasons, in the light of the changes to the Guidance Note which the Defendant has agreed to make, and has indeed already made, and upon the Defendant's agreeing to send such amended Guidance Note out in hard copy, NO ORDER IS MADE ON THIS APPLICATION<my emphasis>"
frank miller wrote:
CO2 or carbon dioxide atmospheric contents, and other green-house gases have nothing to do with Regional AGW {accelerated Desertification}
AGW is 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'
frank miller wrote:
and regional AGC {accelerated global cooling..more freezing rains/snows where we don't need them}
There is no such theory.
http://pda.physorg.com/_news175783212.html
frank miller wrote:
for the simple FACT that there is no heat shield up there,
That there is a greenhouse effect maintaining a warmer surface was well established physics long before AGW theory. Not a heat shield so much as an insulation.
frank miller wrote:
and CO2 according to every Physics/Chemistry reference books since 1932 to present 2010 has remained between 0.03 % to 0.04%
The current levels of 390 ppm are a 39% increase on pre-industrial levels which were very stable at about 280 ppm. This is a MAJOR change and it acts over 100km of atmosphere.
frank miller wrote:
with about 0.0005% increase 35 miles up in a very rarefied air atmosphere!
This is a meaningless statement. CO2 is a 'well mixed' gas and present at all levels in proportion. A 40% increase at the surface implies a 40% increase at 35 miles up.
frank miller wrote:
That is the Science part everyone missed! But 50 percent Deforested Earth since the last 2000 years of civilization, now thank God stopped no longer
absorbs 674 kg.cal. of Solar heat, causing all the 'problems' roots, and remedy outlined many times on Topix, since 2008, as with my above
post!!
F.M.
Frank doesn't understand science. Not sure what he's on about here but it doesn't have to do with any established scientific facts. Deforestations is a consequence of AGW, as can be seen in the link below, and is likely to increase but had no major role in causing AGW.

http://www.tikkun.org/tikkunblog/wp-content/u...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Global Cooling (Apr '15) 27 min Warm Is Better Th... 2,072
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Basil Foramen Bro... 62,298
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 8 hr Warm Is Better Th... 4,667
2016 year to date (Apr '16) 8 hr Warm Is Better Th... 136
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 11 hr Squirtzzz3971 35,607
News Warning against carbon tariffs (Jul '09) Fri Geezer files 6
News 1875: The Global Warming Solution Fri Earthling-1 1
More from around the web