BREAKING: James Lovelock backs down on climate alarm

… that awkward moment when you wake up realizing you’re near the end of your time on earth, and your lasting legacy may be associated with the same folks who taught about the flat earth, the y2k bug and how there would never be a processor faster than the 8086.

Amazing!

If he wasn’t credible in 2006, what makes him credible now?

I was searching for quotes by Molière for a crossword puzzle recently and I came across this gem:
‘It infuriates me to be wrong when I know I’m right’

They are progressives, it’s what they do. As soon as they see they have gone too far, they slow down to allow the balance of power. Then they go nuts again to push the Fabian Socialist agenda.

Maybe he also saw the latest Arctic ice extent/ice area graphs. You don’t hear too much about those these days from the AGW crowd.

Did this cause another cranial decompression event with Mr.Romm?

Quite shocking, but very revealing. A real blow at all climate alarmists. I don’t expect this will hit the mainstream media, though

“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.”
The above alone is going to cause a storm. Its a massive blow to the AGW alarmists. I just hope the alarmists take this statement for what it is, an observable fact,. Sadly though, history tells us that Mr Lovelock will have to endure much personal abuse for his truthfulness.

Wow.
I am…surprised. Very surprised.

Wait, does this mean that Al Gore will admit there’s no consensus anymore?
(roll-eyes)

Expect the usual alarmist suspects to start labeling him an old, senile and mentally compromised fart in a few minutes. No no, don’t listen to him! He’s old and senile and losing his mind! The Big Oil funded Deniers got to him! Etc. etc. etc.
It is refreshing though, I agree with that. Now to see if he suddenly recants and tells the world he was quoted out of context after he starts getting pressured by the watermelons.

Reblogged this on Is it 2012 in Nevada County Yet?.

It is a testament to the force of Gaia that mere humans cannot control the climate! On that note, worst late April snow since 1928 in the NE US.

To be fair he has admitted his mistake but I wonder whether he has considered his contribution to the costs and waste due the alarmists cause?

I have a particular disdain for individuals who make grandiose statements of absolute certainty, like “billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable”, and then later will say things like “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.”
Basically it admits to saying that the original statements were made without sufficient evidence, and then later when the evidence came in, they feel they can backtrack with little consequence.
It shows the complete absence of humility. It shows the complete absence of responsibility. And of course, such individuals should be ignored, but the sad thing is, they will not be ignored because they will instead be paraded as examples to others.
There is really a dearth of healthy skepticism in the public these days, people like this should have been ignored a long time ago.

I have always said Lovelock speaks his mind, and will change his views when the data shows otherwise. He will not be stuck with one opinion because of ideology. Changing ones view is something other alarmists have difficulty doing, but I have always maintained that Lovbelock is not one of them. He is an old school pure scientist.
Even though Lovelock is still a climate alarmist, when the data shows otherwise he will eventually become a climate skeptic. This is now happening.
Well done Lovelock. We need more scientists like you.

We need to hope the ‘temperature climb lull” continues for a few more years. By that time most will realize we actually need to know a lot more about our planet’s climate before we go off with any dire predictions.
Had it not been for the ‘lull’ these p***** would already have the place in the palm of their hand.

Being an infidel is one thing. You’re only treated with derision and contempt (I mean, when they’re not calling for your house to be burned down or for your imprisonment or fantasizing about blowing you up). Being a heretic, well, Lovelock needs to watch his back.

This statement from NOAA is an outright lie taken from the msm article “Asked to give its latest position on climate change, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said in a statement that observations collected by satellites, sensors on land, in the air and seas “continue to show that the average global surface temperature is rising.” They obviously dont want the public to actually see the data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2012.png

Good for Lovelock; for there is joy in heaven over just one sinner who repents …
And anyway, which of us has not been too confident in his time… he probably was genuinely alarmed, and has now seen the error of his ways. Splendid.

MSNBC reports that the lack of temperature rise in the last 12 years has convinced environmentalist James Lovelock ( The Gaia Hypothesis) that the climate alarmism wasn’t warranted.

– – – – – –
” . . . wasn’t warranted.”
Huh ??????
I am sure he should have said, “. . . isn’t warranted.”
You really need to watch what these slippery activists say . . . . .
John

Wow, so that should put and end to CAGW?

Well fair play to James Lovelock!
They say that a lie is half way around the world before the truth can get its boots on, but they also say that ‘Truth is the Daughter of Time’ – and now she has caught up with the lie.
James Lovelock, the green guru and originator of the famous Gaia Theory, though instrumental in the promotion of this global warming nonsense, did start to suspect the truth after the disclosure of the climategate emails. At that time he said in a Guardian interview
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock
So the zone layer was a lot of nonsense as well. But fair play to the man, it is always difficult to admit that you were wrong (can you do it?). So let’s applaud him.

As soon as I see words like “breeding pairs” applied to human beings, I know exactly the sort of person I’m up against. The curiosity is that they don’t realise how revealing it is of their loathing of mankind.
In passing, a shameless plug, because it’s becoming increasingly obvious to me that there’s a health issue and a real eco disaster in train that ordinary people simply aren’t aware of.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/theres-a-killer-in-your-house-2/
Pointman

Good for James Lovelock. There is nothing more noble than a man who humbly admits his error.

But the climate scientists tell us that temperatures have not stayed flat for a decade! You see, it’s not just a single year that matters, but all the years around it. 2009 was warmer than 1999, 2007 was warmer than 1997, 2010 was warmer than 2000, 2011 was warmer than 2001, etc. Therefore the warming hasn’t stopped. Even if temperatures stayed where they are now for 20 years, the warming still hasn’t stopped, since the trend since 1979 would still be positive.

Give him his due – it must have taken quite a lot of courage to say, effectively, I was wrong. I don’t expect that any of the supposed climate ‘scientists’ would do the same.

Icarus62 says:
April 23, 2012 at 10:16 am
“Unfortunately the evidence from sea level rise, global ocean heat content, ice melt and global temperature series all show that there has been no decline in the rate of ”
Yeah ice melt, like arctic sea ice AND antarctic sea ice above normal right now… Icarus, I know you are 100% fact resistant… What’s your agenda? You can’t be as stupid as you pretend. WUWT has a sea ice reference page and everyone uses it. It makes no sense to spread such obvious untruths here. It just doesn’t work. So why are you doing it?

Monty says:
April 23, 2012 at 11:12 am
“Well, Dr. Lovelock isn’t a climate scientist”
Next you’ll call him a denier. That’s how quick warmists throw people under the bus…. It’s getting lonely in your corner, Monty…

integrity
brave
open minded
vs
lacking in judgement
jumping to conclusions
scaring the children

bladeshearer: If he wasn’t credible in 2006, what makes him credible now?
We the people are heterogeneous. He was credible to some then, and to some now. Equally important, he is an example to others: they will now re-examine everything that they thought they knew 6 years ago. Winning a long-term political campaign is usually more like erosion than like blowing the opponents to smithereens. This isn’t that important in the “great scheme of things”, but it is welcome.

Reading the MSN story the last sentence is interesting:
“But of “Revenge of Gaia,” published in 2006, he said he had gone too far in describing what the warming Earth would see over the next century.
“I would be a little more cautious — but then that would have spoilt the book,” he quipped.”
I don’t think he has come over to the skeptics position just yet.
Sigh.

Icarus62 says:
April 23, 2012 at 10:16 am
“Unfortunately the evidence from sea level rise, global ocean heat content, ice melt and global temperature series all show that there has been no decline in the rate of anthropogenic global warming.”
I would like to point out the logical fallacies in your argument, but what kind of logical fallacy constitutes outright falsehoods?
No, the rate of sea level rise has decreased, global ocean heat accumulation has stalled (“where’s the missing heat?” Trenberth, “10^27 Joules missing”, Pielke). Global temperature series ALL show there has been a decline in the rate of global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise – that’s why people are arguing whether the rate of warming of the last 12 years is statistically significant or not – probably not.
However,perhaps you are referring to some as yet unpublished dataset of anthropogenic temperatures in place of actual ones – you know, just add back the cooling effect of natural cycles to get the adjusted anthropogenic temperatures.

“However, the professor admitted in a telephone interview with msnbc.com that he now thinks he had been “extrapolating too far”…”
Well there’s a good bit of the problem right there. Mindless extrapolation.

How on earth could any serious scientist have made the sorts of climate predictions this fellow made? And Gaia? Pulease.
I suspect it was merely for publishing profits. Extremely irresponsible given the numbers of people who could not see the rant for what it was.
The latest mea culpa is probably to keep the money flowing to his estate. I don’t suspect a guilty conscience.

I’d just like to say that I want nothing to do with the old crazy nutter who suggested we’d “put democracy on hold for a while” due to climate change… We don’t need to throw him under the bus, he was never on our bus. He’s a sick old man.

The whole irony about all this is that negative feedback is integral to Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis, and that would put a dampener on models of accelerating greenhouse gas warming. Of course negative feedback is pivotal to Lindzen’s infrared iris hypothesis, Lindzen’s work fits in nicely with Lovelock’s Gaia, like a hand in a snug glove. So Lovelock had to go against the grain of his own work (to a degree) in order to hysterically sell AGW, and man did he sink into absolute hysteria. He let a popular delusion and so-called progressive politics get the better of his otherwise solid scientific mind and knowledge. It takes a big man to admit he messed up over something that is sooo big, so he deserves some credit. Of course he has hardly gone far enough, in correcting for his prior hysterics, yet it’s still good news..

His claims were not only alarmist, but downright plonkers, so I find it hard to trust that man’s judging at all. You would not want to get, Mussolini on your bandwagon, just because he said his claims about the Jews were exaggerated. If you make claims like Lovelace, you are discredited.

“Frozen Planet” was actually hilarious, they spent alot of time talking disinegrating ice shelves in Antarctica without once mention ice extent is INCREASING there.

R. Shearer says:
April 23, 2012 at 11:26 am
“……Most of you probably do not know, but it was his invention of the electron capture detector that allowed the measurement of DDT and other pesticides, etc., at such low levels that it helped spur the environmental movement via Silent Spring, etc.
I always always thought his Gaia was a little fantastic and his position on Global Warming not that surprizing. It gives me great peace and joy to hear of his change of heart.”
Whoa! R.S., sorry but no sympathy/admiration here. Inventing an instrument is great, it’s use for instituting the murderous Silent Spring – not. Originating/furthering the “Gaia” cult as he did not honorable, or sane. Even so, it’s great to see many of these CAGW alarmists backtracking publicly, seemingly out of some level of self-timely remorse. However, I believe he remains a devote elitist mega-Government Progressive. We must take what we can get from these guys.
No doubt the alarmists will dump on him for this, just as Gore did on his Harvard “mentor” Roger Revelle following RR’s late call for CAGW caution – ascribing dementia to RR. Love these CAGW “death bed confessions”..

I’m not so sure I’d think of Lovelock as an heretic. He’s of greater weight than that. It’s more that he has been the Prophet of this whole scam.
Maybe a better parallel would be after WWII, when Hirohito announced to a stunned Japanese people that the Imperial family maintained great affection for the people, but that the Emperor was “not” divine. In other words, they’d just fought a bloody war for a lie.
He is one self-serving ***. he’s been talking out of both sides of his mouth for a long time.
While I’m glad to see him backtracking, I for one feel little sympathy..
brent

Did’nt he make similar OTT statements way back when global freezing was the big scare? Something about the only survivors would be a few tribes living on the equator?

I was just going to give this story as a tip but ya beat me to it. 🙂
At least he is man enough to own up.

“In 2006, in an article in the U.K.’s Independent newspaper, he wrote that “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”
Advertise | AdChoices
However, the professor admitted in a telephone interview with msnbc.com that he now thinks he had been “extrapolating too far.””

And there you have the problem. [my bold]

Lawrence says:
April 23, 2012 at 12:06 pm
“He let a popular delusion and so-called progressive politics get the better of his otherwise solid scientific mind and knowledge. It takes a big man to admit he messed up over something that is sooo big, so he deserves some credit”
But Lawrence. Lovelock has a 100% proven track record of spouting the biggest Malthusian nonsense his entire life, and he sticks with it. He’s really one of the most accomplished idiots one could imagine. Watch him talk about population. It hurts watching him. Even the Beeb guy has difficulty bearing it. He really IS the British Ehrlich. Has nobody ever asked Lovelock how he explains the fact that an ever growing number of humans seem to have no problems surviving?

Lovelock was one of the Malthusians (with Ehrlich, Holdren and Mead) at the 1975 “Our Endangered Atmosphere” conference where it was decided that CO2 would be the right scapegoat to enact totalitarian policies. He’s evil incarnate, not a “big man”, well maybe in the “Dr. Evil” category.
1975 `Endangered Atmosphere’
Conference: Where the Global
Warming Hoax Was Born
Mead, Schneider, Holdren and Lovelock
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/highlights/Fall_2007.html
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf

Reblogged this on TaJnB | TheAverageJoeNewsBlogg.

Icarus62 says:
April 23, 2012 at 10:16 am
‘Unfortunately the evidence from sea level rise, global ocean heat content, ice melt and global temperature series all show that there has been no decline in the rate of anthropogenic global warming, so this story seems to be rather premature. Also, greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere faster than ever, so there is no reason to be complacent.’
You need to keep away from those mushrooms mate.

Any reaction on this from the chicken-little crowd yet?

I’m not sure I’d consider Lovelock an heretic. He’s of much greater weight than that. He was more like the Prophet of the whole scam.
I’d more draw a parallel to the Japanese situation after WWII when Hirohito announced that the Imperial family maintained great affection for the Japanese people but that the Emperor was “not” divine. In other words they had just fought a bloody war for a lie.
Lovelock is one self-serving ***. He’s been talking out of both sides of his mouth for so long. I for one have little sympathy for someone who has so badly misled people for so long.

“80% of humans will perish by 2100 AD”
I would say that’s an underestimate. Most humans don’t live to be 88.

Well done to James Lovelock,
I personally have a lot of respect for someone who looks at the data and changes there mind. He is to be applauded for admitting that he thinks he’s got it wrong.

‘Tom Moriarty says:
April 23, 2012 at 12:31 pm
….
Congratulations James Lovelock. It is never too late. It is better to be mistaken and honest than just mistaken.’
Hear, hear.

I admired him for his invention of devices for measuring minute traces of chemicals, even his original hypothesis that the world behaved as though it were an organism, Gaia for short, made sense. Unfortunately was soon blinded by the fawning fakery of the eco-loonies. Too late to fix the damage. Kudos for admitting an error publicly, but I detect we’ve simply gone from a complete fruitcake to just a fruit-scented cake.

@Jimbo says: April 23, 2012 at 12:31 pm
Non-sarcastically, I am waiting to hear the alarmist say that seriously. I did not have long to wait.

I admire a man who can admit a mistake (alarmism) but I would admire it more if he could make the final step and admit he was and is, wrong (regarding AGW).

“Unfortunately the evidence from sea level rise, global ocean heat content, ice melt and global temperature series all show that there has been no decline in the rate of anthropogenic global warming,”
Trolling? OK I’ll bite, Ice levels globally are currently greater than the 1979 – 2000 average. The Arctic sea ice is currently very very close to the 1979 – 2000 average and the Antarctic ice is greater than the 1979 – 2000 average. (source: NSIDC) ENSO is still in negative territory, (Source:NOAA) Sea levels are not currently rising (source: University of Colorado) Temperatures have not increased significantly in 15 years according to all the main global average temperature records….
I would suggest that you educate yourself by looking up the latest data from official sources. Either that or just keep trolling.

Icarus62 says:
April 23, 2012 at 10:16 am
Unfortunately the evidence from sea level rise, global ocean heat content, ice melt and global temperature series all show that there has been no decline in the rate of anthropogenic global warming, so this story seems to be rather premature.

Check you ‘facts’ again and provide references.

I was invited to comment here (before the heavy hand of censorship fell). Hopefully that wasn’t because I was expected to defend Lovelock.
Lovelock went emeritus a while back (2010, it would appear). But even back in 2006 he was fairly wacky. He isn’t a source for useful information on GW, and hasn’t been for, oooh, ages.
OK, having said that, lets try reading wot you wote:
> James Lovelock… has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change
Sounds entirely correct. As I said in 2006, see just above. You lot should listen to me, y’know? Or you could listen to James Annan instead.
> Lovelock, 92, is writing a new book in which he will say climate change is still happening, but not as quickly as he once feared.
Oh dear, not another one. He had nothing to say last time round.

DirkH says: @ April 23, 2012 at 11:37 am
…Icarus, I know you are 100% fact resistant… What’s your agenda? You can’t be as stupid as you pretend. WUWT has a sea ice reference page and everyone uses it. It makes no sense to spread such obvious untruths here. It just doesn’t work. So why are you doing it?
_________________________
Dirk, that is quite simple. Monty, Icarus WmConnelly and the rest are all here at WUWT because their echo chambers do not get any traffic. They are here to try and sway those who are unsure as to whether or not CAGW/Climate Change is real to their side or at least keep them doubting. That is why they never ever provide any proof but instead attack to get the WUWT regulars on the defensive hoping we will either ignore them or look foolish.
We are looking at the run up to another Political Gab Fest where they hope to push through the United Nations/World Bank Carbon Tax. Such a tax independent of sovereign nations is critical for advancing “Global Governance” Such a tax allows complete control of a country’s economy too.
CAGW has always been about money and power so it pays to keep those facts in mind.

Yes, this is in the ultimate MSM….MSNBC. I cannot believe they published it, but it’s really refreshing.
Lovelock’s GAIA theory right or wrong, really has some credibility and is at least interesting.
I believe as he ages he is concerned about his legacy. He wants to distance himself from the politics, personalties and the general nuttiness of the passing fad and I cannot blame him a bit.
We should welcome him back to the real world, and encourage other scientists who have been drawn in, to escape from the cloud of alarmism. I don’t care if he ever becomes a full blown skeptic, so long as he continues to disavow alarmism.

Freon? Freon is a nonreactive gas.

I cannot find anything on the BBC about this significant change… So I have tweeted Richard Black and David Shukman, to let them know. 🙂

Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.

One step at a time.
It would be nice if he also confesses that the Gaia hypothesis makes less sense that a Star Trek episode.
If the Earth is alive, then what is its life cycle? How it reproduces? Maybe it is pregnant and that is the cause of its temperature fluctuations 😛
I never took this man seriously. It is obvious that the Gaia hypothesis is a fairy tale he wrote to sell books. Pointing out a negative feedback or two is not enough to declare something alive. If it were so, my iPhone is also alive since it is capable of more than that. Not only responds to changes of light intensity but also responds to sound and pressure stimuli, yet, nobody claims (yet) that iPhones are alive. They cannot assimilate external matter, grow and produce descendants. They have no life cycle, therefore they are not alive.
It was amazing, though, that he could deceive so many people with the Gaia fairy tale.Maybe it was a test to see if the CAGW could be marketable.

recantations

Icarus62 says:
April 23, 2012 at 10:16 am
Unfortunately the evidence from sea level rise, global ocean heat content, ice melt and global temperature series all show that there has been no decline in the rate of anthropogenic global warming, so this story seems to be rather premature. Also, greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere faster than ever, so there is no reason to be complacent.
The trouble for you and your cherrypicking chums is that cherry season has ended!
But please stop chucking [SNIP: Language and civility. -REP].

You have to respect the man’s honesty. Good on him.

The oceans constitute by far the largest proportion of the heat content of the climate system, and they show no sign of any decline in the rate of warming –
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/04/22/comment-on-ocean-heat-content-world-ocean-heat-content-and-thermosteric-sea-level-change-0-2000-1955-2010-by-levitus-et-al-2012/
Wouldn’t we see it there, if anywhere?

Many years ago, around 1976, Dr. James Lovelock bought a number of our Gas Chromatographs to set up in the remotest corners of the earth to study pollution and its effect on the climate. What he found was an unexpectedly large amount of dimethylsulphide (DMS) in the atmosphere, and that acted as a condensation point for cloud formation. He was a paid consultant for the company I worked for, so he came back a couple of times a year, always willing to hold a seminar for us engineers, and at one of them he sprung “Daisyworld” on us, before it was published, mostly to see if we could poke holes in his hypothesis. It involved a world that consisted of only two flowers, black daisies and white daisies. The computer simulation starts out with a cold world and a weak sun. The sun warms up until suddenly black daisies appear and cover the earth. This warms the earth some more and white daisies appear. As the sun varies in intensity the mix of white and black daisies changes and this keeps the earth at a stable temperature since they have different reflective properties. He then went on to say that the whole earth is like a living organism.
He later presented the paper and the next year we asked him how it was received. “You won’t believe it”, he answered. ”Now there are people that actually believe the earth is a living organism. They demand follow up articles that justifies their belief.” Talking about religion the Mother Earth people now got their goddess, GAIA, and expressions like. “The earth has a temperature” became commonplace.
I have always had the greatest respect for Dr. Lovelock, and I welcome he is finally free from the clutches of extreme environmentalists.

I agree with Cannoli. The guy’s always been a wacko. Getting wackos on your side isn’t what the scientific method is about.
If Al Gore came to his senses about AGW, it would neither support nor hurt the science.
There are plenty of consistently reasonable people (and an abundance of evidence) to make the case.

“…because it looked clear-cut,…,” Lovelock said.
Wow. Amazing how far a naive conclusion can carry a preposterous claim.

Good for him! It takes courage to admit you were wrong, especially that wrong!

China backs down too, which is putting a spanner in Australia’s emissions trading scheme dream:
24 April: Business Spectator: China delays plans for carbon trading scheme
Further details on China’s plans for a carbon trading scheme undermine Labor’s contention that Australia’s carbon pricing plan was necessary because other countries, like China, are also taking tough action on climate change, according to a report by The Australian Financial Review.
The details suggest that China’s plan, which has been delayed, won’t see energy companies directly taxed under its carbon trading scheme.
Plans to launch a national emissions trading scheme in 2015 have instead been delayed until at least 2016, according to the project’s top official….
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/China-delays-plans-for-carbon-trading-scheme-pd20120423-TMQ7B?OpenDocument&src=hp6

I think someone who is nearing a century old, has a better perspective on “climate” as opposed to weather. Looking at 92 years of extremes in both directions would temper your viewpoint, and give the various cyclic changes a good run. Bravo for him for updating his opinion.

ArndB says:
April 23, 2012 at 2:35 pm
“James A. Lovelock seems able to speak clearly without really knowing whether it makes sense or even worth, is providing support to the opposite of what are the facts, or is needed.”
Yeah, I noticed that too. On the other hand, he has several themes he stuck to: Population Bomb, Warmism since 1975, and Gaia.
I think what he really does is he throws crazy ideas into the public in interviews and publications, watches the feedback, and when it resonates, he delivers more of it. see
lenbilen at April 23, 2012 at 2:37 pm
above.
He might say in an interview that he wants democracy to be abandoned. If he gets positive resonance, he’d write books about the nondemocratic technocratic utopia. If he gets a backlash, he’d drop it.
This means that CO2 AGW alarmism sells so badly now that he drops it even though it was his staple since 1975.

A note on civility: I’ve noticed that at least some people have a tendency to reply to posts like this with the same, harsh and personal rhetoric often used by the worst of the (religious) warmist crowd.
With (I think) few exceptions, scientists and humans in general who accept the CAGW scenarios and propositions are doing their best — their viewpoints are honest and not dishonest. They may weight different pieces of research or sets of numbers differently than I would, and may even do things that (in my opinion) lead them to incorrect results and conclusions, but I suspect that most of them do so in good faith, not because they are participating in a global conspiracy to destroy the world. Indeed, most of them are probably largely misled by their perception that they are saving it, that their “guess” that we are all in trouble justifies minor sins bending the numbers to agree with their conclusion more strongly to convince the waverers. Yes, it is a religious sort of argument, but remember that many people who are religious are religious in good faith as well, however mistaken they are to believe in something like God or Jesus or Allah without anything like sound evidence or argument to back them up.
Unless somebody is making a specific profit from the argument — the priesthood in the case of real religion, or a certain class of scientist in the case of CAGW — perhaps we could do everyone the courtesy on both sides of the debate on WUWT of giving them the benefit of the doubt regarding their personal honesty. Just as it is inappropriate for warmists to call for pitchforks and torches to be applied to deniers by greater force to shut them up, it should be just as inappropriate for us to call for jail sentences or hellfire and damnation for the “sin” of being mistaken in good faith about the climate. Yes, there are dire consequences associated with incorrect choices for action, but people have to do the best that they can to make those choices with limited knowledge and ability, and even scientists (if they are wise) acknowledge that the problem is difficult enough that their own fondest beliefs could be mistaken — on either side. Nature will eventually show us the way, but in the meantime let’s try to be excellent to each other, shall we, and not call somebody a “doddering old fool” simply because they, for a time, were possibly mistaken.
I’m just saying, which of us lives in a house that contains no structural glass in our worldview to the point where we can afford to not only throw stones, but do so in a hostile way that if anything will discourage people from changing their mind even as evidence mounts that they are wrong.
I don’t even really like the term “warmist” or “denier” or “skeptic” in the debate. The labels are useful for identifying people by the approximate camps in which their belief set lies, but at this point one needs a half dozen labels to include “lukewarmists”, “deniers of the GHE itself”, and so on at ever finer levels of detail. At the very least, civilized discussion should avoid most of the childish pejoratives, don’t you all think?
I, for one, am thrilled that yet another reasonable person has changed their mind, at least to the tune of knocking a bit of “C” off of CAGW. It is direct evidence that they are fundamentally honest and hence fundamentally not deserving of tar and feathers, be they real or metaphorical.
If only Mann, Gore, Hansen and a few others of the camp that really are religious CAGW “believers” with a “cause” — to more or less directly quote from some climategate letters their own words, not mine — could be so honest and reasonable. If only the entire debate were made civil and open on both sides.
In the meantime, remember that the basic principle of skepticism is to view even your own beliefs with a healthy dose of doubt, let alone those of others. We could all be wrong. The CAGW crowd could be right. The next fifty years might well prove it conclusively. The real question is: given the evidence and arguments available today what is it best to believe.
Personally, I think the answer is: Real GHE, negative feedback, solar effect (unproven) dominant, multiple non-Markovian lagged timescales contributing through the vast thermal reservoir of atmosphere, land and sea to the dynamics, with albedo modulation a much larger and more important factor than CO_2 (and one with a well-known long time scale positive feedback pathway to glaciation that is, apparently, still blocked by unknown factors but which could at any time revive to bring back the ice.
But I could be wrong. That’s why I keep studying and keep re-examining the evidence instead of pretending that I already understand it well enough to prove anything.
rgb
rgb

Icarus62 says:
April 23, 2012 at 2:34 pm
The oceans constitute by far the largest proportion of the heat content of the climate system, and they show no sign of any decline in the rate of warming -………….

Of course not.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/23/an-ocean-of-overconfidence/

wmconnolley says:
tamino, seriously?
You are Boring.

Ah, I see Mr. Connolley is back. He must have resolved the issues with his funders.

Alvin on April 23, 2012 at 10:09 am said:
They are progressives, it’s what they do. As soon as they see they have gone too far, they slow down to allow the balance of power. Then they go nuts again to push the Fabian Socialist agenda.
———
Can I extrapolate from that that when non-progressives go to far they just keep on going to far. And then they go nuts trying to go even further still.

lenbilen says:
April 23, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Thanks for your comments and explanation of Daisy World. Lovelock has been thinking about the relationship between living organisms and atmospheres for a long time. His early work was with NASA and exploration of the possibility of life on Mars. He realized that the atmosphere on Mars was essentially in thermodynamic equilibrium, whereas the Earth’s atmosphere is far from equilibrium. In other words, life and geological processes have substantially altered the composition of our atmosphere. Consequently, life on Mars at this time was either non-existent or not abundant enough to change the properties of its atmosphere — a result borne out by the Viking explorers and recent robotic missions. One tantalizing observation has been the seasonal increase in methane concentrations, though there is some controversy as to whether these ground based observations are real. With the current planned missions we should know in a few years.
His proposal for a homeostatic/regulated environment, the Gaia Hypothesis, is overstated and was roundly criticized by many, especially outside of the environmental scientific community. He has always struck me as a free thinking maverick with a penchant for making bold statements and delighting in the subsequent to and fro. One of the reasons that environmental scientists at the time were sympathetic to his views was the prevailing view of ecosystem procession leading to a final equilibrium state. Times have changed and forward thinking environmental scientist view ecosystems as more dynamic, in which communities are not static and some members of the communities significantly alter their environment. Nature is always more interesting than you can imagine.
I also see in the Gaia Hypothesis some parallels to the Anthropic Principle in cosmology which has strong to weak forms. The very strong Gaia Hypothesis is that the Earth is a living organism of radical environmental fame. The strong Gaia Hypothesis is that Earth’s biosphere is like a living organism with homeostatic feedbacks that maintain a fairly constant environment. The weak Gaia Hypothesis is that living organisms constantly change the biosphere and subsequently adapt through evolution to live in the environment that they create. Thus, it appears to be “in balance” even though it is constantly changing.
Icarus62: “Also, greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere faster than ever.” If you are looking at the Keeling Curve of the rise in concentration, you may be mixing up rate of increase and concentration. Interestingly, with 2011 likely being the year with the highest rate of CO2 production from fossil fuels (2010 was the previous high), the rate of increase was 1.88 ppmv/yr for 2011, last I checked. This is essentially the rate of CO2 increase that Hansen et al proposed for Scenario B (holding emissions at 1988 levels). Yet, global emissions have increased from 6.0 to 9.1 GtC/yr. What gives?

deliciouslygrey says:
April 23, 2012 at 4:26 pm
“Interestingly, with 2011 likely being the year with the highest rate of CO2 production from fossil fuels (2010 was the previous high), the rate of increase was 1.88 ppmv/yr for 2011, last I checked. This is essentially the rate of CO2 increase that Hansen et al proposed for Scenario B (holding emissions at 1988 levels). Yet, global emissions have increased from 6.0 to 9.1 GtC/yr. What gives?”
Derivative of CO2 and temperature overlayed and scaled to match:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/scale:5/offset:-0.8/from:1980/plot/uah
CO2 increase/decrease speed depends strongly on global temperature. Ocean outgassing/adsorption.

DirkH,
True dat. I have been following that for a few years. I have a Mathematica notebook that I update monthly with the release of the temperature/CO2 data. Doing a crude linear fit of lower troposphere temperature for each region, the best fit for a 4 month smoothing of both temperature and CO2 yearly increase with a 0.5 yr offset is for the tropical temperature (R^2 ~0.53). I haven’t removed the Pinatubo years yet, which significantly reduced the CO2 rate of increase when compared to temperature. Global temp gives a slightly poorer fit (R^2 ~0.44). The really weird thing is that doing a Fourier analysis on the residuals of the tropical model gives a significant 2 yr peak. Caveat emptor: that analysis is just for fun. Who knows what it means.
My question was directed at Icarus62. My interest is more on the biological side, but the carbon cycle is so poorly understood, it is difficult for me to wrap my brain around this sort of data.
rbg: Hear! Hear!

The human body contains many microorganisms without which we would not survive. Many of our organs evolved from simpler examples in less complex organisms.
IMHO the GAIA theory is merely a mental extension of that knowledge onto the surface of the earth.
Over the eons living things have created the atmosphere we enjoy today and shaped geology tremendously. Microscopic life has had far greater impact that any large animal species. These changes occurred over vast timescales, and other living things far outweigh humans in terms of their biomass and their physical impact on the biosphere.
There is likely no apparent “will” or collaborative organization of the whole living things, other than the will to survive. So called “invasive species” come and go in an particular location, and the result is a change in the biosphere to which nearby flora and fauna must adapt, compete or flee.
Perhaps GAIA is misinterpreted as a belief in some sort of organized social collaboration among all living things. I don’t think that is Lovelock’s theory, but one which arose from socialists who exploited his theory in order to justify socialism as something natural. Socialism is anything but natural, as it promotes the entirely unnatural practice of penalizing the strong and exessively favoing the weak. In nature the strong thrive and the weak perish in order to preserve the integrity and continued evolution of the whole of life.
Perhaps GAIA was hijacked for political gain in a similar way that the movements in protest over vietnam, racism and a really incredible music renaissance were hijacked in the ’60’s into the great society and the “progressive” movement of today.

Alright that’s it. A one time prediction of projected advance of global warming proves the prophet deserves “stoning”. I have no problem with the present lull in temperatures as clearly according to trends of over thirty years – this is common. Anyone who claims to know is a liar. Strong words but the reality that much of the air heat was driven into oceans during the La Nina. It’s now gone negative – meaning we into the El Nino when UAH data will rise again to yet a higher threshold. We will see an upswing of temperatures (air) over the next 5 years that will break all records. The patterns are too strong globally to ignore. To say it’s not based on warmer thresholds is fantasy. To not see the record March temperatures over the US. To not know of strange droughts hitting the UK. To not recognise when droughts break – it floods in records broken. To not see the continued weakening of the ice thickness in the Arctic as it self repairs in Winter. To turn a blind eye to warming patterns biting in the Western Antarctica. To not see snow and flooding downpours as the hydrological patterns prove churning of extra energy in the climate has increased. To not experience one of the mildest winters in Australia. To turn a blind eye to global trends in the 90% of glacier melts that are significant. To use and depend on singular air temps at certain altitudes whilst ignoring variability of the atmospheric column and sea surface sequestering. To ignore increased water vapour activity. Not warming signs? Look at convoluted graphs. Trust UAH temps that were locked in a cooling bias in 2005 that our pair of “egos” were not wanting to admit – “we were wrong”. To use tortured analysis to prove the non-warming models fit a paradigmatic self centred existence. To look at the world and see you in it maintaining lifestyle that is dying a slow death. To not do anything. And to think that the inflated money will eventually balance and make us all happy again.
I know where we are headed. If ever a time comes to each and everyone, when an individual right begins the long spiral to a non-sustainable existence – the world will change. There is no evidence whatsoever that any political movement has an answer. To ignore that the years of plenty will go into years of chaotic change and deficit over the next fifty years is not a friend anyone welcomes. I indeed wish it would all go away.
As I climb into the eagles nest and remove my blinders I begin to see the far off horizon. And we know. We sense it. We smell it in the air. It is that sudden glimpse on the distant horizon that tells me not to rest my head too easy. To think and begin again. To have our beliefs broken. To plan and be aware. To break the very self centred ideals as to why I want it a certain way – a future without pain created in the mind. The reality of life and all it brings with it remains. Pain and pleasure. Sweet and sour. Things I believe and things I do not want to believe.

Yes Connolley, we are well aware of Tamino’s statistical prowess. ROFL
http://climateaudit.org/2008/03/26/tamino-and-the-magic-flute/
http://climateaudit.org/2008/03/17/bilge-in-taminos-canoe/
In fact, he’s so good, he still thinks the hockey stick is valid science.

This is VERY good. We need to hear these big names and once big voices say this sort of thing. It WILL be noticed and will stand strong for what it means. The voices of doom that were heard most powerfully are admitting they got it wrong.
More voices will join this one. He’s done us all good.

Re: Brad, April 23, 2012 at 10:53 am
That last article you linked to, “Published on Monday, March 29, 2010 by The Guardian/UK James Lovelock: Humans Are Too Stupid to Prevent Climate Change”.
He said, “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.”
Now 12 months later he says, “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.”
This to me tells me he’s a bleedin’ idiot.
So; 11 years of no change, we’re all gonna die, democracy must be put on hold ect..
12 years no change, oh sorry about that I guess we’re not going to die.

This to me tells me he’s a bleedin’ idiot.
So; 11 years of no change, we’re all gonna die, democracy must be put on hold ect..
12 years no change, oh sorry about that I guess we’re not going to die.

It tells me his publicist recommended a change in tactics to increase sales of his new book.
Unless he is actively working to tear down the global warming hoax, this is just public relations.
Larry

He needs to answer the question “if you got it so wrong, why should anyone pay heed to what you say now?”.

Be interesting to see if the environmentalists turn on him like they have on every other CCC apostate. Maybe Al Bore & his academic hit-man Justin Lancaster will try to paint him as a senile old coot, like they tried to do to Roger Revelle.

This makes me really mad. Guys like this have resulted in the wastage of vast sums of money which could have been better spent on people who really needed help and on research which might have positively helped mankind’s future. He should be ridiculed for being so stupid to cause alarm based on opinion and not on facts. And he should apologize profusely for his extremely poor judgment. Being a former warmist he probably won’t because they think they can do no wrong.

gnomish says:
April 23, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Quoting Henry Rollins has elevated you an order of magnitude in my estimation (not that you care). Kudos anyway.

You have taken a snake to your bosom. The obviously ludicrous claims Lovelock made will now be replaced with more “reasonable” claims about climate change. The push will still be on in his new book — and you have said nice things about him that will make great quotes in the ads for that book. What we will get in that book is “repackaging” — not humble pie. A leopard cannot change its spots. His “retreat” is merely to a more defendable fort. The new James Lovelock is the same as the old James Lovelock — just his sales pitch will be more updated. Like all con men this guy has no shame.
I say again, it is repackaging, not any change of intent. A retreat to a more defendable fort. Strategically speaking he is disarming you. By renouncing those rediculous claims he takes a weapon out of your hands. The alarmists need such obviously ludicrious claims to be taken off the table. if one of their own renounces them they become far less harmful. They can then turn around and scorn you and laugh at you for bringing up such “far out” stuff while they are trying to discuss “serious” science.
That is how this is all going to go down. Mock this man, don’t praise him. There are no good intentions in him.
Eugene WR Gallun

Lovelock’s reversal is less than it seems to many of the posters here. It is true that he acknowledges it was over the top to talk of the reduction of humanity to a few breeding pairs, but he is writing a new book to guide us in how to avoid climate change.:
“The new book will discuss how humanity can change the way it acts in order to help regulate the Earth’s natural systems, performing a role similar to the harmonious one played by plants when they absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen.”

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing” is the money quote.
however, not everyone has seen the light. Douglas lists his CAGW business interests:
23 April: Bloomberg: Paul Douglas: Forecast Calls for Climate-Smart Business (Part 2)
When will American business wake up to the scientific reality of climate change?
When the common-sense moderate middle wakes up…
I’m a moderate Republican, a Penn State-trained meteorologist and small-business owner, and I’m disheartened by my party’s refusal to acknowledge the physical evidence of climate change. The denial is disconcerting in and of itself, but it could also have serious and long-term economic consequences.
Action in the U.S. is being held back by a potent concoction of political mendacity about science, misleading talking points from anti-science groups, blind party loyalty (on all sides), investment barriers, century-old energy business models and generation gaps…
And the fact is, if we burn the carbon reserves still in the ground our kids and grandkids will inherit a radically different planet. It’s a moral, as well as technological challenge. Acknowledging climate science doesn’t make you a liberal. It makes you literate. If you’re in business, it can make you richer. If you’re in the military, it will leave you safer…
It’s difficult to understand politicians’ rejection of scientific facts. Maybe they think acknowledging such an all-encompassing environmental issue makes them look weak…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-23/forecast-calls-for-climate-smart-business-part-2-paul-douglas.html

He reminds me a bit about Speer.
An architect who wants to build something …a belief….for a cult…where Gaia can be worsipped.
And then, when the cult crumbles, he says he is sorry, he didnt really know he was wrong, and that the cause was evil. He didnt know so many people would suffer when his cult wanted them disappeared. So sorry!

brent says:
April 23, 2012 at 10:58 am
James Lovelock: Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change
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.”
All the democracies on Earth put off elections for the duration of WWII. Not.
James Lovelock is an ambulatory climate simulation program — can’t forecast, can’t hindcast.

Jeremy says:
April 23, 2012 at 6:09 pm
…they’re simply abandoning a sinking ship for a new alarm.
http://www.lastcallattheoasis.com/
^^^ Made by the same people who made An Inconvenient Truth.
“…the film features activist Erin Brockovich and such distinguished experts as Peter Gleick, Alex Prud’homme, Jay Famiglietti and Robert Glennon.”
So, it’s sci-fi comedy?

The word ‘alarmism’ is far too polite for the egergious pronunciations of this psuedo-scientist. Nor is catastrophism. ‘Fanaticism’ is the correct term. And it was on a par with the most extremist of religious fanatics dotted around the world.
Whilst his reputation as a scientist may well be beyond redemption Lovelock should leave no stone unturned to try to correct the record among his former fellow CAGW cultists. There are still many impresionable young people who yet may thank him that they were given pause to ponder how they came to be so brain-washed.
MNBC is a start. But only a start. Take your walking stick or zimmer-frame or electric pony sir – and get out there and start making amends. Time is not on your side.