'Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change

Apr 23, 2012 | Posted by: The Truth Matters | Full story: worldnews.msnbc.msn.com

James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said. “The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said. “The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

Comments
41 - 60 of 60 Comments Last updated May 4, 2012
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Gord

Calgary, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
May 3, 2012
 

Judged:

6

5

5

If you were ever in doubt about the AGW Agenda, watch and read this.

Ehrlich, Hansen, Lovelock: We Must Build “An Entirely New Kind Of Global Society”
April 10, 2012
http://www.infowars.com/ehrlich-hansen-lovelo...

Here is the joint paper prepared for The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP)

Environment and Development Challenges: The Imperative to Act

Gro Harlem Brundtland, Paul Ehrlich, Jose Goldemberg, James Hansen, Amory Lovins, Gene Likens, James Lovelock, Suki Manabe, Bob May, Hal Mooney, Karl-Henrik Robert, Emil Salim, Gordon Sato, Susan Solomon, Nicholas Stern, MS Swaminathan, Bob Watson, Barefoot College, Conservation International, International institute of Environment and Development, and International Union for the Conservation of Nature,
http://www.unep.org/pdf/pressreleases/Blue_Pl...

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44
May 3, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Gord wrote:
If you were ever in doubt about the AGW Agenda, watch and read this.
Ehrlich, Hansen, Lovelock: We Must Build “An Entirely New Kind Of Global Society”
April 10, 2012
http://www.infowars.com/ehrlich-hansen-lovelo...
Here is the joint paper prepared for The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP)
Environment and Development Challenges: The Imperative to Act
Gro Harlem Brundtland, Paul Ehrlich, Jose Goldemberg, James Hansen, Amory Lovins, Gene Likens, James Lovelock, Suki Manabe, Bob May, Hal Mooney, Karl-Henrik Robert, Emil Salim, Gordon Sato, Susan Solomon, Nicholas Stern, MS Swaminathan, Bob Watson, Barefoot College, Conservation International, International institute of Environment and Development, and International Union for the Conservation of Nature,
http://www.unep.org/pdf/pressreleases/Blue_Pl...
I stopped watching the video half way through, the guy talks in circles.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45
May 3, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Oops, I don't do media, I didn't let the inforwars page fully display. One good thing about a slow internet connection,, plenty of time to close tabs and windows.

The pdf [ http://www.unep.org/pdf/pressreleases/Blue_Pl... ] is interesting, want to know why alarmists don't care about experiments?

"In order to refine our understanding of the fundamental ecosystem processes underpinning the delivery of ecosystem services we need both to extend our observations and experimental manipulations, and also to improve our models of the key mechanisms.

Better holistic ecosystem models offer a potential way forward for understanding some of the uncertainties and highlighting the sensitivities of multiple interacting drivers on ecosystems, the processes within them, and the flow of services and goods."

So, experiments are second best, they prefer computer models.
Pat Robertson s Fatwass

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46
May 3, 2012
 

Judged:

8

7

6

Hey anti rational Tea Baggers, you're confusing once more the science of climate change with your dislike of the proposed remedies.

You don't like the idea of limiting carbon use, therefore, in your universe, climate change cannot possibly be related to human activity.

Controlled, laboratory experiments of the entire atmospheric, formerly homeostatic system are not possible. There are a few controlled experiments in localized situations - terraria essentially - regarding co2's effect upon nitrite density in soils.

But apart from that, what you don't know and will now wish to deny, along with everything else, is that the climate change models have become predictive.

Some have under-predicted the pace of climate change we are seeing and measuring. Lovelock's, because he was so far off the mean of the consensus, way over predicted the effects we would be seeing currently.

But you people don't know what a "theory" is. You morons thought Hermain Cain had a tax policy rather than a stuttering problem. Sarah Palin is your idea of a foreign policy genius.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47
May 3, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Pat Robertson s Fatwass wrote:
Hey anti rational Tea Baggers, you're confusing once more the science of climate change with your dislike of the proposed remedies. You don't like the idea of limiting carbon use, therefore, in your universe, climate change cannot possibly be related to human activity.
I am carbon, of course I don't like the idea of limiting carbon use. Why would anyone like someone setting your carbon emission and absorption quotas? This is worse than limiting food or water, if I don't emit CO2, I die.

Don't like the proposed remedy is one thing, every FDA approved remedy goes through experimental trials; I don't like this quack climate prescription of limiting carbon use since it can do more harm than good.

.
Pat Robertson s Fatwass wrote:
Controlled, laboratory experiments of the entire atmospheric, formerly homeostatic system are not possible. There are a few controlled experiments in localized situations - terraria essentially - regarding co2's effect upon nitrite density in soils.
There are physical models of Earth, with different greenhouse gas atmosphere; and they show there's no need to panic. We have time to wait for the science to mature, review experimental data, before we adopt a policy to mitigate climate change.

.
Pat Robertson s Fatwass wrote:
But apart from that, what you don't know and will now wish to deny, along with everything else, is that the climate change models have become predictive.
Yes, but they are wrong more often than not. They have a terrible error rate and aren't good for much more than educational benefit.

.
Pat Robertson s Fatwass wrote:
Some have under-predicted the pace of climate change we are seeing and measuring. Lovelock's, because he was so far off the mean of the consensus, way over predicted the effects we would be seeing currently.
You prove the point, Lovelock's model was wrong. The central of the consensus isn't the goal, accuracy in prediction matching measured temperature is the point.

Look at your newspaper, the models for weather aren't even very good. Don't put your faith in politicians in cahoots with scientists to regulate carbon use, that's a joke.

.
Pat Robertson s Fatwass wrote:
But you people don't know what a "theory" is. You morons thought Hermain Cain had a tax policy rather than a stuttering problem. Sarah Palin is your idea of a foreign policy genius.
Pat Robertson s Fatwass

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#48
May 3, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

2

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I am carbon, of course I don't like the idea of limiting carbon use.
They don't make em stupider or more disingenuous than you.

co2 is a known greenhouse gas. Emissions have been rising. The effects have been seen and predicted.

Lovelock has moderated his models. He is not a denier, like you are. The qualified scientific consensus is overwhelming.

People who regularly confuse "weather" and "climate" are manifestly unqualified. And that's being charitable.
Gord

Calgary, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#49
May 3, 2012
 

Judged:

8

7

7

ECOSCIENCE:
POPULATION,
RESOURCES,
ENVIRONMENT

PAUL R. EHRLICH
STANFORD UNIVERSITY

ANNE H. EHRLICH
STANFORD UNIVERSITY

JOHN P. HOLDREN
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

W. H. FREEMAN AND COMPANY
San Francisco

----------
CHAPTER 13
Population Policies

Of all things people are the most precious.
-- Mao Tse Tung

Any set of programs that is to be successful in alleviating the set of problems described in the foregoing chapters must include measures to control the growth of the human population. The potential goals of such measures in order of possible achievement are:

Reduce the rate of growth of the population,
although not necessarily to zero.

Stabilize the size of the population; that is, achieve a zero rate of growth.

Achieve a negative rate of growth in order to reduce the size of the population.

Presumably, most people would agree that the only
humane means of achieving any of these goals on a global basis is by reducing the birth rate. The alternative is to permit the death rate to increase, which, of course, will inevitably occur by the agonizing "natural" processes already described if mankind does not rationally reduce
its birth rate in time.

Even given a consensus that curbing population
growth is necessary and that limiting births is the best approach, however, there is much less agreement as to how far and how fast population limitation should proceed. Acceptance of the first goal listed above requires only that one recognize the obvious adverse consequences of rapid population growth -- for example, dilution of economic progress in less developed countries,
and aggravation of environmental and social problems in both developed and less developed countries.
Economists and demographers, many of whom will not accept..."

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst...
Gord

Calgary, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51
May 3, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

6

Ehrlich and Lovelock have always supported a One Billion (or less) World Population and view a strong Totalatarian Government as the only type of Government capable of making the "tough decisions" necessary to "Reduce" the World Population from Seven Billion to One Billion.

Now Hansen has joined the Eco-Gang Fanatics.

Ehrlich, Lovelock, James Hansen and other nuts have produced this "We have a dream" document for The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP).
http://www.unep.org/pdf/pressreleases/Blue_Pl...

How any reader could not grasp that the document is about "GLOBAL Management" of energy, food, water, natural resources, wealth distribution , society, population and governance is simply astounding.

They claim:
---------
"Unfortunately, humanity’s behavior remains utterly inappropriate for dealing with the potentially lethal fallout from a combination of increasingly rapid technological evolution matched with very slow ethical-social evolution.

The human ability to do has vastly outstripped the ability to understand.

As a result civilization is faced with a perfect storm of problems driven by overpopulation, overconsumption by the rich, the use of environmentally malign technologies, and gross inequalities.

They include loss of the biodiversity that runs human life-support systems, climate disruption, global toxification, alteration of critical biogeochemical cycles, increasing probability of vast epidemics, and the specter of a civilization-destroying nuclear war.

These biophysical problems are interacting tightly with human governance systems, institutions, and civil societies that are now inadequate to deal with them.

The rapidly deteriorating biophysical situation is more than bad enough, but it is barely recognized by a global society infected by the irrational belief that physical economies can grow forever and disregarding the facts that the rich in developed and developing countries get richer and the poor are left behind.

And the perpetual growth myth is enthusiastically embraced by politicians and economists as an excuse to avoid tough decisions facing humanity. This myth promotes the impossible idea that indiscriminate economic growth is the cure for all the world's problems, while it is actually (as currently practiced) the disease that is at the root cause of our unsustainable global practices.

In the face of an absolutely unprecedented emergency, society has no choice but to take dramatic action to avert a collapse of civilization.

Either we will change our ways and build an entirely new kind of global society, or they will be changed for us."
----------
Continued...
Gord

Calgary, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52
May 3, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Continuation..

Here is some of what they have to say on these issues:

Population:
"Both culturally and genetically, human beings have always been small-group animals, evolved to deal with at most a few hundred other individuals."

Economics:
"Uncontrolled economic growth is unsustainable on a finite planet. Governments should recognise the serious limitations of GDP as a measure of economic growth and complement it with measures of the five forms of capital, built (produced), natural, human, social and institutional/financial capital, i.e., a measure of wealth that integrates economic, social and environmental dimensions and is a better method for determining a country’s productive potential."

Socio-Political:
"There are serious shortcomings in the decision making systems on which we rely in government, business and society. This is true at local, national and global levels. The rules and institutions for decision making are influenced by vested interests, yet each interest has very different access to how decisions are made. Effective change in governance demands action at many levels to establish transparent means for holding those in power to account."

Cultural:
"The importance to reducing inequity in order to increase the chances of solving the human predicament is obvious just in the differences in access to food and other resources caused by the giant power gap between the rich and the poor."
----------
They go through the standard "We Are All Doomed" AGW crap but this statement kinda sticks out from the rest:

"China, for example, is leading the global efficiency and clean-energy revolutions not because of international treaties and Conventions but to speed her own development and to improve public health and national security.

Climate leadership is thus shifting from international negotiations to firms, national and subnational governments, and civil society—and from North to South, where most of the brains are."
----------
The Importance of Good Governance:

"There are serious shortcomings in the decision-making systems on which we rely in government, business, and society more broadly."

"Governance involves much more than the ensemble of government frameworks, and includes multiple and overlapping governance systems, with the private sector, civil society, sub-national and local levels all engaged in making decisions in relation to their interests."

"Transformation of governance systems needs to accommodate a far broader range of interests (both poor and rich, young and old, those of the future as well as of the present), and ensure access to better information as regards the likely impacts of different pathways taken."

"Globally, we urgently need better means to agree and implement measures to achieve our collective goals.

Given the large numbers of states and their separate jurisdictions, more effective and far-reaching international institutions and rules are necessary, yet nation states are unwilling to submit to collective agreements which constrain their freedom of manoeuvre."
----------
Oh My

Sedalia, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#53
May 3, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

3

Gord wrote:
ECOSCIENCE:
POPULATION,
RESOURCES,
ENVIRONMENT
PAUL R. EHRLICH
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
ANNE H. EHRLICH
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
JOHN P. HOLDREN
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
W. H. FREEMAN AND COMPANY
San Francisco
----------
CHAPTER 13
Population Policies
Of all things people are the most precious.
-- Mao Tse Tung
Any set of programs that is to be successful in alleviating the set of problems described in the foregoing chapters must include measures to control the growth of the human population. The potential goals of such measures in order of possible achievement are:
Reduce the rate of growth of the population,
although not necessarily to zero.
Stabilize the size of the population; that is, achieve a zero rate of growth.
Achieve a negative rate of growth in order to reduce the size of the population.
Presumably, most people would agree that the only
humane means of achieving any of these goals on a global basis is by reducing the birth rate. The alternative is to permit the death rate to increase, which, of course, will inevitably occur by the agonizing "natural" processes already described if mankind does not rationally reduce
its birth rate in time.
Even given a consensus that curbing population
growth is necessary and that limiting births is the best approach, however, there is much less agreement as to how far and how fast population limitation should proceed. Acceptance of the first goal listed above requires only that one recognize the obvious adverse consequences of rapid population growth -- for example, dilution of economic progress in less developed countries,
and aggravation of environmental and social problems in both developed and less developed countries.
Economists and demographers, many of whom will not accept..."
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst...
It appears you are making a solid case in favor of another world war.

War would be the quickest way to reduce the population.
Gord

Calgary, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#54
May 3, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Oh My wrote:
<quoted text>
It appears you are making a solid case in favor of another world war.
War would be the quickest way to reduce the population.
It's not MY view, I think these people are Psychopaths.

By the way, John Holdren is your current "Science Czar".
Pat Robertson s Fatwass

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59
May 3, 2012
 

Judged:

10

10

9

Gord wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not MY view, I think these people are Psychopaths.
By the way, John Holdren is your current "Science Czar".
Oh moron, the planet can't sustain the wildly increasing human population at the present per capita levels of consumption of resources.

This doesn't mean we have to return to one billion people in a fortnight by totalitarian decree, as you Tea Bagging, white supremacist, fundie survivalists would phrase it.

Any idiot knows this.

Except for Quiver xstains, cretins who can't tell "weather" from "climate," idiots who think the earth is under 10000 years old or that Intelligent Design is testable science.
Gord

Calgary, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60
May 4, 2012
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Pat Robertson s Fatwass wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh moron, the planet can't sustain the wildly increasing human population at the present per capita levels of consumption of resources.
This doesn't mean we have to return to one billion people in a fortnight by totalitarian decree, as you Tea Bagging, white supremacist, fundie survivalists would phrase it.
Any idiot knows this.
Except for Quiver xstains, cretins who can't tell "weather" from "climate," idiots who think the earth is under 10000 years old or that Intelligent Design is testable science.
FYI, the AGW IDIOT PSYCHOPATHS are the ones that that are using the AGW SCAM to DO EXACTLY WHAT THEY PUBLISH, you DUMBASS.

Hitler published Mein Kampf that foretold what he was going to do with the Jews.

Ehrlich, Lovelock, James Hansen, John Holdren and other NUTS are TELLING YOU THAT YOU ARE "HUMAN SCUM" and you are TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND.

Like all AGW CULT MEMBERS you just drink the Kool-Aid and sink back into your Delusional Stupor.

----------
Here is some more on the AGW PSYCHOPATHS that you Worship in your AGW/GAIA CULT:

The thread is called "Scientific American: Kill More Babies To Save Earth"

The AGW CULT is a Death Cult full of Psychopaths.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
----------
PS:
Anytime you or any of your CULT want to KILL PEOPLE....START WITH YOURSELF, you A-HOLE PIECE OF HUMAN GARBAGE.
Pat Robertson s Fatwass

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61
May 4, 2012
 

Judged:

10

10

9

Gord wrote:
<quoted text>
FYI....
Why would compare these scientists you don't like when you are an obvious neo Nazi?

Anyway, you're too crazy, even for the other denying idiots.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63
May 4, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Pat Robertson s Fatwass wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't make em stupider or more disingenuous than you.
From the guy who changes his name on an anonymous blog.

LOL
Pat Robertson s Fatwass

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64
May 4, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
From the guy who changes his name on an anonymous blog.
LOL
Don't you religious freeeks like variety when you're being mocked?

Hey cretin, recognizing that fertility rates need to be adjusted downward because the planet can't sustain the current population trends is not the same as violently culling four or five billion humans.

Now, sane people would understand this tiny distinction. But not the crowd that can't tell "weather" from "climate," that doesn't know what "theory" means, that thinks Intelligent Design is science. People like that need more than just hom skool tuterz to fix the damage....
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65
May 4, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Pat Robertson s Fatwass wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you religious freeeks like variety when you're being mocked?
Hey cretin, recognizing that fertility rates need to be adjusted downward because the planet can't sustain the current population trends is not the same as violently culling four or five billion humans.
Now, sane people would understand this tiny distinction. But not the crowd that can't tell "weather" from "climate," that doesn't know what "theory" means, that thinks Intelligent Design is science. People like that need more than just hom skool tuterz to fix the damage....
Inane twaddle.

Please, find one name and keep to it.

You do a disservice to all other posters from Philly, as they cannot all be loons.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66
May 4, 2012
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Pat Robertson s Fatwass wrote:
But you people don't know what a "theory" is.
I gather you think an hypothesis is a theory.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67
May 4, 2012
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Pat Robertson s Fatwass wrote:
They don't make em stupider or more disingenuous than you. co2 is a known greenhouse gas. Emissions have been rising. The effects have been seen and predicted. Lovelock has moderated his models. He is not a denier, like you are. The qualified scientific consensus is overwhelming. People who regularly confuse "weather" and "climate" are manifestly unqualified. And that's being charitable.
When you laugh, you emit more carbon dioxide than if you are quiet; we are carbon. We have always emitted CO2, climate has adapted to our greenhouse gas emissions.

Adaptation to climate is a proven survival strategy; no plant or animal has evolved the ability to mitigate climate change.

All I'm saying, we need to see experimental data before we change our economy for quack pseudoscience.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68
May 4, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Gord wrote:
ECOSCIENCE:
POPULATION,
RESOURCES,
ENVIRONMENT
PAUL R. EHRLICH
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
ANNE H. EHRLICH
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
JOHN P. HOLDREN
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
W. H. FREEMAN AND COMPANY
San Francisco
----------
CHAPTER 13
Population Policies
Of all things people are the most precious.
-- Mao Tse Tung
Any set of programs that is to be successful in alleviating the set of problems described in the foregoing chapters must include measures to control the growth of the human population. The potential goals of such measures in order of possible achievement are:
Reduce the rate of growth of the population,
although not necessarily to zero.
Stabilize the size of the population; that is, achieve a zero rate of growth.
Achieve a negative rate of growth in order to reduce the size of the population.
Presumably, most people would agree that the only
humane means of achieving any of these goals on a global basis is by reducing the birth rate. The alternative is to permit the death rate to increase, which, of course, will inevitably occur by the agonizing "natural" processes already described if mankind does not rationally reduce
its birth rate in time.
Even given a consensus that curbing population
growth is necessary and that limiting births is the best approach, however, there is much less agreement as to how far and how fast population limitation should proceed. Acceptance of the first goal listed above requires only that one recognize the obvious adverse consequences of rapid population growth -- for example, dilution of economic progress in less developed countries,
and aggravation of environmental and social problems in both developed and less developed countries.
Economists and demographers, many of whom will not accept..."
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst...
I had not seen this, thanks.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 3
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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••