Godfather Of Global Warming Admits He Was Wrong

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by pspr, Jun 23, 2012.

  1. pspr

    pspr

    By Lorrie Goldstein

    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.

    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.

    Among his observations to the Guardian:

    (1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.

    As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)

    (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.”

    (3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.

    As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”

    (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.”


    http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel
     
  2. About a year ago my wife and I went to a presentation at a local university given by a former NASA scientist who said much the same thing. He believed that the earth's climate was changing and at least part of change was caused by humans. But he also believed the forecasting models were inaccurate and the effects had been vastly overstated.
     
  3. About a year ago, I read an article published by an advocate of the doomsday global warming theory. (I can't remember his name. I'll try to dig it up) He stated that in the absolute worst case scenario, the sea would rise less than 1 centimeter per year.

    These Nat Geo programs on tv which give what if scenarios drive me crazy. They tell you New York could be under water in 50 years, when one of the biggest advocates of the greenhouse theory says the sea may rise less than one meter in the next century if all hell breaks loose.

    Some of these alarmist folks should be arrested for outright fraud.
     
  4. pspr

    pspr

    They want their grants and, in some cases, the government to dump money into their businesses, like Al Gore wants. Since the GW science is speculative at best they probably figure they should err in the manner that serves them best.
     
  5. Maverick74

    Maverick74

    This part is absolutely true:

    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.”


    I'm sure freethinker is not happy to read this. But it's true. Green is no longer about science and more about "belief", hence the preponderance of poli-sci majors lecturing us on global warming.