BREAKING: James Lovelock backs down on climate alarm

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.

From his Wikipedia entry: Writing in the British newspaper The Independent in January 2006, Lovelock argues that, as a result of global warming, “billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable” by the end of the 21st century.

He has been quoted in The Guardian that 80% of humans will perish by 2100 AD, and this climate change will last 100,000 years. According to James Lovelock, by 2040, the world population of more than six billion will have been culled by floods, drought and famine. Indeed “[t]he people of Southern Europe, as well as South-East Asia, will be fighting their way into countries such as Canada, Australia and Britain”.

What he has said to MSNBC is a major climb down. MSNBC reports in this story:

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.

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.

He previously painted some of the direst visions of the effects of climate change. 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.”

However, the professor admitted in a telephone interview with msnbc.com that he now thinks he had been “extrapolating too far”…

“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 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 won’t sit well with many. McKibben has a whole movement based on alarm for example. Watch the true believers now trash him in the “doddering old man” style we’ve seen before.

hat tip to Steve Milloy at junkscience.com

About these ads

287 thoughts on “BREAKING: James Lovelock backs down on climate alarm

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

  2. … 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.

  3. Truth and data are stubborn things. What else can you do but climb down if you have a shred of honesty about you? Al Gore is right, the debate is over.

  4. 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’

  5. An IPCC scientist admitted to me that they don’t understand why the temperature hasn’t increased over the last 15 years, and ‘anyone who claims to know why, is a liar”.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. Lovelock has been showing some disappointment about the direction of Greenism for a while. For instance, he’s been stoutly for nuclear power while most Greenies want zero power and zero humans.

    Nice to see a firm and definite statement!

    Of course he doesn’t control any grants or budgets, so this won’t make any practical difference.

  9. And where is the cost or scorn for yelling fire in the theatre in the first place? There is no cost for this villiage idiot stupidity and that is the policy problem for the global civilization. He got his 15 minutes of fame like Charles Mansion and the rest of us have to gho pick up the pieces and shake our heads in the aftermath. Soviet misinformation specialists could not craft such effective media schemes because their KGB masters would have balked at the incredulity of the operation’s concept and plausibility.

  10. I’m happy to read this, as his thoughts parallel my own, and also reflect the public words of Dr. Richard Lindzen. The mass of carbon dioxide being exhausted into the atmosphere is immense and growing, but the direct relationship to excessive warming is fuzzy at best. This warrants more HONEST scientific examination, not more of the fear-mongering and economic tampering of the Hockey Team and their ilk.

    Good news, Anthony, thanks.

  11. “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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.
    ===============
    …and my arthritis is acting up

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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?

  17. Never trust anyone over 30.
    James Lovelock is 92 therefore he cannot be trusted. Either that or he no longer fears an assassin in the night.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. It is interesting to see how he wants to hide in the arctic from global warming, seeing how most of the “global” warming is of course an average, where the majority of the warming is happening in the arctic… err…

  21. 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.

  22. “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.

    Well that is complete bunk here in Oregon. Like elsewhere we have officials and academia who declare now more than ever that it’s clear-cut and they DO KNOW what the climate is doing. There is no hearkening back to “20 years ago” when they thought it looked clear-cut.

    Of course it never was clear-cut then and nearly the entire climate science arena is a now festering sore of chicanery which science has never before seen.

  23. Does this mean we can have democracy back as well?
    And can we call off all those plans for World Governance to “solve” the non-existent problem?
    Can we now cancel RIO+20 and Agenda 21?

    brent

    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.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock-climate-change

    James Lovelock knows of what he speaks: personal experience allows him to say that a lot of humans aren’t that bright.
    But Lovelock forgets that while there are many—half!—who are below average on the IQ scale, it takes an academic to say something really stupid.

    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2156

    We’ve lost our fear of hellfire, but put climate change in its place
    “Billions will die,” says Lovelock, who tells us that he is not normally a gloomy type. Human civilisation will be reduced to a “broken rabble ruled by brutal warlords”, and the plague-ridden remainder of the species will flee the cracked and broken earth to the Arctic, the last temperate spot, where a few breeding couples will survive.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3622794/Weve-lost-our-fear-of-hellfire-but-put-climate-change-in-its-place.html

    Hardtalk – James Lovelock – Population reduction (max 1 billion)

    James Lovelock, who propounded the Gaia hypothesis in 1979, initially rejected humans’ cancer-like impacts as a corollary, declaring flatly: “People are not in any way like a tumor” (Lovelock 1988, p. 177). But before long he modified this view, observing: “Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor or neoplasm” (Lovelock 1991,p. 153).

    http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/e-sermons/humcan.html

  24. 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.

  25. Well, a recant by a leading AGW proponent shows that he is an honest man and did believe the evidence appeared to support AGW. We won’t get this from the hardcore climate scientists that have been prepared to twist facts and employ non-facts to keep it all going. Nor from the large number of non-scientist useful fools (bladeshearer? Icarus?), nor from the ideologue-green who don’t care about facts anyway. We will soon be able to sort them out – Lovelock has safely categorized himself as an honest scientist.

  26. 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

  27. 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.

    Got any references there,sunny-boy? Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof.

  28. 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.

  29. 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

    You are correct sir, there has been no decline, nor has there been any increase either, because there is no quantifiable evidence of anthropogenic global warming to make such a determination. The Earth however is still warming after going through the Little Ice Age.

  30. 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

  31. Well, Dr. Lovelock isn’t a climate scientist and I (and most other climate scientists I guess) didn’t really take much notice of his views when they were rather alarmist. I don’t take that much notice of his pronouncements now. By the way, 12 years is too short to identify a climate trend.

  32. 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.

  33. Pardon me if I really don’t pay any attention at all to the latest ‘revelation’ of someone who honestly believed six years ago that the only inhabitable place on Earth in 2100 would be the Arctic.

  34. 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

  35. I met Jim Lovelock in the early 80’s. He is a wonderful person and brilliant scientist in an esoteric kind of way. His life work was heavily influenced by the likes of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells. 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.

  36. It was only two years ago that Lovelock told The Guardian,
    “The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet. One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models, but he said they hadn’t got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 50 years from now? They’ve employed scientists to tell them what they want to hear.”

    Lovelock, while I do not subscribe to much of his metaphysics or prognostications, is an honest actor and there really was no gain for him in reporting what the leaders of the “great climate centers” said privately to him. Yes, it does appear that clouds and aerosols are running the show, or at least represent forcings missing from the IPCC calculations. More than missing, they’ve been kept out by ideologues who didn’t want the boat rocked.

  37. 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.

  38. @Monty says:

    April 23, 2012 at 11:12 am

    By the way, 12 years is too short to identify a climate trend.

    =======================

    Yale would tend to disagree, they think one winter/summer is sufficient to establish a climate trend.

  39. 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.

  40. 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.

    Well, we mustn’t ruin a good book with the facts, especially when it might reduce revenues.

  41. 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?

  42. 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.

    Hugh Pepper, 2012. Boy, quoting a quoter is gonna convince us, bigtime.

    com·pla·cent/kəmˈplāsənt/
    Adjective:
    Showing smug or uncritical satisfaction with oneself or one’s achievements.

    I’d say, Icarus62, the only thing missing is the achievement.

  43. Some of what he says is very true. Before the end of this century, billions of us will die. Life expectancy is still in the 80s, so even someone born today is likely to be dead by then. I’m in my 50s. I know I’ll be dead by then.

    Again, that was just a silly prophesy. The second part, of course, that only a few breeding pairs in the Arctic is strange in that it is so NH-centric. (Ignoring the unlikelihood of global warming killing the rest of the population.) Wild writer. I’m surprised anyone paid him any attemtion. This sounds sillier than Gore’s predicitons.

  44. 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…

  45. How refreshing to see a pronouncement on how science should be done: We thought we knew – more evidence doesn’t support what we thought – we were wrong.

    Well done sir, and may you yet receive that telegram from the Queen.

  46. integrity
    brave
    open minded

    vs

    lacking in judgement
    jumping to conclusions
    scaring the children

  47. 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.

  48. Still a long way ahead. As these graphs have fluctuation theories too, will change. People come and go. What remains is the universe, but not so that we can imagine. Our Childish joys today are of our helplessness. Lovelock initially thought he had reached the possible perfection.

  49. 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.

  50. “However, the professor admitted in a telephone interview with msnbc.com…”

    And MSNBC are absolutely sure they were interviewing Lovelock, and not an imposter?

  51. 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.

  52. Monty: By the way, 12 years is too short to identify a climate trend.

    Someone ought to have informed James Hanson of that when he concluded that the earth was warming again after a long spell of non-warming.

  53. “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.

  54. Eventually they will all have to admit the truth. Some will take longer than others to confess their sins, and you can bet there will be an abundance of weasel words, but it’s going to happen. Hubris, get thee gone.

  55. 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.

  56. @David April 23, at 10:09 am

    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.

    Discovery Channel’s “Frozen Planet” episode “On Thin Ice” last night could only be described as an alarmist “We’re Melting!! Melting!!” The NYTimes chief complaint is that the show doesn’t emphasize why.

    I have to admit, nothing actually said last night was a lie. A selective telling of the facts, oh that it was! Seasoned with “if trends continue…” to raise anyone’s BP. That the ebbing of ice cover might be a cyclical ebb and flow? – Not even a hint. Another “connect the dots” using only some of the dots.

  57. Monty says:
    April 23, 2012 at 11:12 am

    Hmmmn.

    So “12 years is way too short to identify a climate trend”.

    Well, is a mere 25 years enough to identify a climate trend?

    Let’s see:

    1888-1916. CO2 assumed constant, temperature fell. 28 years.
    But this is not a climate trend.
    1916 – 1938-1940. CO2 near constant, temperature rose. 24 years.
    But this is not a climate trend.
    1940 – 1973. CO2 rose, temperatures fell. 33 years.
    But this is not a climate trend.
    1973 – 1998. CO2 rose, temperature rose. WOW!! A climate trend.
    1996 – 2012 CO2 rose, temperature was steady. 16 years.
    But this is not a climate trend.

    So, in the entire 4.5 billion history of the planet, only the one single 25 year period when both CO2 and temperatures rose at the same time creates a climate trend.

  58. You guys know what the movement leaders will say. He’s 92. He must have dementia. The same thing they said about Harold Lewis. When the apostate’s younger, they question the miscreant’s sanity, as with Judith Curry. Still, it’s a manifestly good thing, and I give the man credit.

  59. 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.

  60. I believe that the lack of volcanoes over the last 20 years or so has caused real problems for alarmists.
    They felt they could safely predict warming, thinking they had a get-out if warming didn’t occur because they could point to an eruption somewhere. That hasn’t happened so people like Lovelock are forced to back-track.
    At least he has been honest in back-tracking. However I believe he was deliberately overstating his confidence before.

  61. 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..

  62. The warmista press release: ” A study is in the works, proof that AGW is worse than we thought. Global warming causes severe senility Alas, a victim within our own ranks.”

  63. 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.

  64. Monty says:
    April 23, 2012 at 11:12 am

    Well, Dr. Lovelock isn’t a climate scientist and I (and most other climate scientists I guess) didn’t really take much notice of his views when they were rather alarmist.
    XXXXXXXxx

    You do understand how debate works, don’t you?

    Until you provide evidence for your claim of being a “climate scientist”….Well…you ain’t!

    You sound like you think you cast a white shadow.

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

  66. Icarus62 says:

    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.

    That’s right! Anthropogenic warming rate still what is was twenty years ago – zero.

    Also, greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere faster than ever, so there is no reason to be complacent..

    Exactly! No justification for being complacent, when you should be celebrating! More energy for the world’s population, more food for plants. Stop being complacent, and show the joy.

  67. 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”..

  68. 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

  69. not to be outpublished by michael mann, lovelock announces a shocking something to be revealed in his new book. he knows how to write an alarming book.
    and the naive somehow characterize this as honesty? does anybody have a clue what honesty is?
    a liar lies until he sees the lies don’t work, then he recants and starts over with new lies.
    and the gullible ooze awes over him cuz they are gullible loozers. gullible means you believe anything you hear and think you’re smart enough to not have to know better.
    cue the gulping sounds and the der-tee-ders.
    keep rewarding the scum of the earth, gullibles. it’s on your dime.
    suckers. there’s nothing that can’t be done to you that you won’t praise the perp if he just says ‘oopsie’? hey- bohica. you obviously want a second helping.
    ‘i’m so sorry i hurt you – i’ll change – i’ll never hurt you again. if you just give me another chance – i’ll tell you everything you want to hear. cuz i’m a liar! a liar!” (henry rollins)

  70. 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?

  71. I cannot but help suspect he was one of those who wanted it to be true. They wanted a crisis. They wanted to alarm people. They wanted to be vindicated in their general concerns – Strong, Schneider, Hansen, Houghton and all those who came after them finding advantage in campaigning such as Gore and Pachauri, uncounted charities and political groups, and even some scientists such as Jones (“.. I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”). Their arrogance and gross irresponsibility have never been attractive, and surely a great deal of harm has flowed from such as them over this past 20 years or so. That said, he is displaying some humility, and indeed some humanity given the damage that is being done by this ill-founded alarm, in backing away from his earlier views, and that is something. The damage has been done, the political power won, the institutions corrupted – so it is a bit late. But still, it is something. It was by no means largely due to him – his part was minor. And he remains a distinguished man with many achievements worthy of note.

  72. 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]

  73. This will do exactly nothing to change the minds of the faithful – see Icarus62’s silly comment above as a prime example. Despite the fact that we know 100% that temps have not risen to any significant degree for well over a decade, he still maintains that it has and is. I’m not sure if he has actually looked at the rate of sea level rise, but again I’m guessing that if he does look – and see like everyone else that it is not accelerating above the natural rate that it’s been rising since before the industrial age – he STILL won’t accept the facts. But of course that’s faith for you.

  74. 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

  75. My experience (as a human being) has been that it is very difficult to admit you are wrong, especially when there is a great emotional investment or question of reputation. But making the admission can be very liberating.

    Congratulations James Lovelock. It is never too late. It is better to be mistaken and honest than just mistaken.

  76. Lovelock is now a ‘Climate Denier’ / SARC

    “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.

    This is a PR blow for the sceptics.

  77. 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.

  78. mkelly says:
    April 23, 2012 at 10:37 am
    Icarus62 says:
    April 23, 2012 at 10:16 am

    Shirley you jest.

    —————————————————————————————————–

    No he is not “jesting” and please don’t call him Shirley. Couldn’t resist ;)

  79. Lovelock began his climbdown a bit at a time. Even before today.

    Guardian UK – Monday 29 March 2010
    The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet. One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models, but he said they hadn’t got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 50 years from now? They’ve employed scientists to tell them what they want to hear. The Germans and the Danes are making a fortune out of renewable energy. I’m puzzled why politicians are not a bit more pragmatic about all this.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock

    [My bolding]

  80. 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.

  81. It appears Mr. Lovelock, at 92, has realized his mortality and is trying to make amends for the damage he has wrought before he dies. Sorry Lovelock, it’s too late for atonement. The misery and waste you and your ilk have caused in the name of “global warming” should ensure you a special place down below.

  82. “80% of humans will perish by 2100 AD”
    I would say that’s an underestimate. Most humans don’t live to be 88.

  83. Monty says:
    April 23, 2012 at 11:12 am
    “Well, Dr. Lovelock isn’t a climate scientist and I (and most other climate scientists I guess) didn’t really take much notice of his views when they were rather alarmist. I don’t take that much notice of his pronouncements now. By the way, 12 years is too short to identify a climate trend.”

    Monty,
    Not being a climate scientist might be the best one could say of him, however, any type of “scientist” should recognize poor data, poorer statistical work and political agenda when he sees it and this guy did not and still does not as you note in your “twelve year” comment. Probably just another case of rats fleeing a sinking ship.

  84. 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.

  85. My response to James Lovelock is:

    I haven’t been listening to you because it has been clear for a decade that you are full of cr@p.

    Now that he is old, about to die in shame, he is trying to scrape together a pathetic semblance of dignity in service to his ego and at the expense of his progeny …..the greens. yeah…. stick it to your offspring you self-centered liar and snake oil salesman!

    I have no time for crack-pot priests like Lovelock, His freaky language and schizophrenic connections of religion, science, and terraphilia was a give away from the get go. He should be ostracized for the jerk that he is.

    Crawl under a rock you old fool.

  86. ‘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.

  87. Monty says:
    April 23, 2012 at 11:12 am

    Well, Dr. Lovelock isn’t a climate scientist and I (and most other climate scientists I guess) didn’t really take much notice of his views when they were rather alarmist.

    – – – – – –

    Monty,

    You are distancing yourself from the well documented alarmism of the IPCC?

    It looks like you are and that is just as important as Lovelock’s distancing himself from the alarmism of the IPCC. I sincerely congratulate you on a big step into a more rational existence.

    Does it feel good to get out of that closet?

    John

  88. 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.

  89. Even though for years he was an ardent climate alarmist I never gave up on Lovelock. When you hear him speak you can tell that he’s compelled by the data.

    He’s still an alarmist today but he’s seeing the light. Just as many of us who read this bog regularly were climate alarmists at one time. None of us switched our climate opinion easily, it took a bit of time before we realized we weren’t alarmists anymore.

  90. @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.

  91. For the amount of damage created by this one doddering olde fool there should be pillories, stocks or tar and feathering. Now he says…oops… maybe I was wrong about the whole human extinction thing….after TRILLIONS of dollars spent, and the entire field of science and education being corrupted…. oops he says…..

  92. 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.

    c’mon Icarus62, take a look at the video of the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level data here…

    http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/updated-psmsl-sea-level-video/

    then come back and tell us about the accelerating sea level rise rate

  93. “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.

  94. Pointman says: @ April 23, 2012 at 11:23 am
    ….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/

    _________________________________________
    You are correct. The Darn things remind me of Dupont and the Freon patent only much much worse.

    The DuPont patent for Freon (“Process for Fluorinating Halohydrocarbons”, U.S. Patent #3258500) was set to expire in 1979.

  95. 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.

  96. The problem with Lovelock is that the Gaia hypothesis is a load of tosh. It is an attempt in a post-Enlightenment, post-Christian world to explain how the Universe works. It is just religion for atheists.
    The Earth is not some self-sustaining organism ( there was an episode of Blakes 7 in the 1970s where they had a planet-sized organism ). It wobbles on its axis, something changes; it passses through a galactic gas cloud, something changes; the sun wakesup/goes to sleep, something changes.
    Although Heaven rejoices for one sinner that repenteth etc etc I’m afraid that the old boy has been wrong for so long , this recantation has come a bit late.

    p.s. I really DON’T LIKE the new wordpress comments box. Reckon it might be time to take a leaf out of so many Blogspot customers and create yopur own site,Anthony.

  97. 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.

  98. This was coming:

    Lovelock is as provocative as ever. He is withering about the attempt of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to forge a consensus, a word that he says has no place in science: “Just think, over 1,000 of the world’s best climate scientists have worked for 17 years to forecast future climates and have failed to predict the climate of today.”

    By Roger Highfield, Telegraph 19 Mar 2009

    What, I wondered, would be the great man’s view on the latest twists in the atmospheric story — the Climategate emails and the sloppy science revealed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)? To my surprise, he immediately professed his admiration for the climate-change sceptics.
    “I think you have to accept that the sceptics have kept us sane — some of them, anyway,” he said. “They have been a breath of fresh air. They have kept us from regarding the science of climate change as a religion. It had gone too far that way. There is a role for sceptics in science. They shouldn’t be brushed aside. It is clear that the angel side wasn’t without sin.”
    As we were ushered in to dinner, I couldn’t help wrestling with the irony that the so-called “prophet of climate change”, whose Gaia theory is regarded in some quarters as a faith in itself, was actively cheering on those who would knock science from its pedestal.
    Lovelock places great emphasis on proof. The climate change projections by the Meteorological Office’s Hadley Centre — a key contributor to the IPCC consensus — should be taken seriously, he said. But he is concerned that the projections are relying on computer models based primarily on atmospheric physics, because models of that kind have let us down before. Similar models, for example, failed to detect the hole in the ozone layer;
    How, asks Lovelock, can we predict the climate 40 years ahead when there is so much that we don’t know? Surely we should base any assumptions on things we can measure, such as a rise in sea levels. After all, surface temperatures go up and down, but the rise in sea levels reflects both melting ice and thermal expansion. The IPCC, he feels, underestimates the extent to which sea levels are rising.
    “What would you bet will happen this century?” a mathematician asked him. Lovelock predicted a temperature rise in the middle range of current projections — about 1C-2C — which we could live with. Ah, but hadn’t he also said there was a chance that temperature rises could threaten human civilisation within the lifetime of our grandchildren?
    He had. In the end, his message was that we should have more respect for uncertainties and learn to live with possibilities rather than striving for the 95% probabilities that climate scientists have been trying to provide. We don’t know what’s going to happen and we don’t know if we can avert disaster — although we should try. His sage advice: enjoy life while you can.

    extracts from Charles Clover’s account of a Royal Society meeting, New York Times, 14 March 2010

  99. 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.

  100. 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.

  101. “Monty says:
    April 23, 2012 at 11:12 am

    Well, Dr. Lovelock isn’t a climate scientist and I (and most other climate scientists I guess) didn’t really take much notice of his views when they were rather alarmist.”

    Here we go. When an environmental scientist like Lovelock can now be dismissed as “not a climate scientist” after decades of being a climate and environmental scientist, purely because he no longer proscribes to the catastrophic prognosis of the climate alarmists, it shows that they have NO interest in the science whatsoever, and ONLY look at the belief of whoever is writing.

    Climate alarmists are now a joke.

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

  103. First the Vatican exonerates Copernicus and now this. It makes you wonder if they will throw in the towel on abiogenic hydrocarbons of Thomas Gold for which funds were wasted on a drill rig to nowhere in Sweden and in a NOVA episode to match their GAIA nonsense episode. The common denominator on these science farces is the waste of other peoples money. As in the case of the dry hole in Sweden, when will they realize they need to pull the plug on the exercise? This is a a form of sanity test for policymakers and anyone else who recognizes scarcity of financial resources at any level.

  104. Avalanche Warming signs

    Keep any eye out for any cracks shooting across the surface, or small slabs shearing off. These are signs of weakened snowpack. Also, listen for “hollow” or “whumping” noises as you walk or ski. This indicates that there is a weaker layer underneath, leaving the surface layer more prone to collapse.

  105. John Shade says:
    April 23, 2012 at 12:26 pm

    I cannot but help suspect he [Lovecock] was one of those who wanted it to be true. They wanted a crisis. They wanted to alarm people. They wanted to be vindicated in their general concerns – Strong, Schneider, Hansen, Houghton and all those who came after them finding advantage in campaigning such as Gore and Pachauri, uncounted charities and political groups, and even some scientists ….

    A silent factor that once aided the warmist cause but is now hurting it is the general failure of renewable energy to live up to the hype, and the increased scrutiny its claims have drawn. A lot of people wanted renewable energy’s “promise” to be true, so they hyped AGW as a way to jump-start it–IMO. The enthusiasts aren’t publicly recanting, but their enthusiasm is cooling.

  106. Bomber_the_Cat says:
    April 23, 2012 at 11:18 am

    Well fair play to James Lovelock!
    ……………….. it is always difficult to admit that you were wrong (can you do it?). So let’s applaud him.

    You may find that most commenters here used to be Warmists and had to suddenly do an about turn when they dug a little deeper. I am one of them and I vaguely recall so is Anthony Watts who was lead down the dark side by a state climatologist who told him to take a closer look at (Stevenson screen???) thermometers. ;-)

  107. 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 :P

    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.

  108. Billy Connolley says:

    “I was invited to comment here (before the heavy hand of censorship fell).”

    Outrageous and shameful nonsense. Could Connolley be any more hypocritical?? After years of blatant censoring of scientific skeptics’ comments at Wikipedia, Connolley is whining about something that never happened: he is still posting here, while pretending that he was censored! How does he reconcile those contrary ideas? Cognitive dissonance.

    After being booted out of his government job, and Wikipedia, and with hardly any traffic on his blog [which he incessantly flogs in his posts here], Connolley seems to be at loose ends. Just like Keith Olbermann:

    http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/olbermann_at_loose_ends_tT0IsX1xU0GIk5AvvWy8II

    How the mighty have fallen, eh?

  109. 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].

  110. “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.”

    Shouldn’t it really read “Lovelock, 92, is writing a new book in which he will say climate change is still happening, but not as quickly as WE CAN DETECT OR MATTERS A JOT and certainly we cannot attribute the observed changes to man’s activities.”

    He should also apologise to all of us who have been victimized by the fascism he inspired and supported with his statements of certainty with words such as “will”, when in fact “could” and “might” were more appropriate. Not to mention the people who *have* died due to starvation or suffered immense malnutrition caused by the linkage of Food to Energy prices.

  111. 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

    Would you please stick to the facts instead of spitting out empty rhetoric?

    1. Sea level rise is decelerating, current rate is well below 2 mm/year.
    2. Ocean heat content rise is decelerating, for the past 10 years it’s an order of magnitude lower than projected by computational climate models.
    3. Current global sea ice extent is 609,000 km² above the 1979-2008 mean.
    4. Here you can find RSS Global Lower Tropospheric Temperature data (not contaminated by UHI). Trend is -0.028°C/decade for the last 15 years. You can check the math for yourself.

    I could give you detailed references to all the data sources behind these propositions, just don’t have an infinite supply of time for fools.

  112. 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. For example, he gave a speech in Cardiff in September 1989 on “The greening of science” saying:
    “Science must abandon its genteel posturing and come down to Earth again, quite literally. This is no easy task. It requires scientists to recognise that science has grown fat, lazy, and corrupt and like an obese atherosclerotic man, imagines that more rich food will cure his conditions”. (in: The Guardian, 29. 09.1989) .
    J.A.L got what he wanted. Climate science abandoned any genteel posturing dramatically during the last 23 years.

  113. 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.

  114. 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.

  115. jayhd says:
    April 23, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    It appears Mr. Lovelock, at 92, has realized his mortality and is trying to make amends for the damage he has wrought before he dies. Sorry Lovelock, it’s too late for atonement. The misery and waste you and your ilk have caused in the name of “global warming” should ensure you a special place down below.
    ___________________________________
    I am with you on that sentiment. People seem to forget the numbers of deaths caused by Lovelock, Ehrlich, Holdren, Mead and the other Malthusians and the Progressives like Jones, Mann, Hansen, Al GOre and Clinton.

    …winter as figures confirm up to 23,000 over 65 died last winter from cold related illnesses. Figures from the Office of National Statistics confirmed that there were 25,700 more deaths in the winter of 2005/06 than in other parts of the year…. http://www.metro.co.uk/money/23326-23-000-elderly-die-from-the-cold

    And those deaths were only in the UK from cold. There are plenty of other deaths, like the children who starved because of a combination of bio-fuel, loss of farmland to “investors” and the commodities futures trading in food by Goldman Sachs and others. Food riots broke out in 30 countries following the deregulation in the US of trading on commodity indices, (US Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 – CLINTON) when commodities began to attract an influx of non-tradtional investors, such as pension funds and managed investment funds. Speculation drove food prices up until the 2008 price spike. About 3.5 million children under the age of five die from malnutrition-related causes every year despite no real food shortages (the food rots due to distribution problems/prices). Goldman Sachs’ estimated 2009 profits from its commodity index fund was $1billion dollars. http://www.christianaid.org.uk/images/hungry-for-justice.pdf and http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/arabic/article.cfm?articleid=2641

    The situation above, just like climate, was due to more than one factor but the big players are the same group who want Cap & Trade. Goldman Sachs had been contracted to run the investment trading floor of the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE (CXX) for example. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/shorebank.php

  116. “…because it looked clear-cut,…,” Lovelock said.

    Wow. Amazing how far a naive conclusion can carry a preposterous claim.

  117. This is how the precautionary principle works. Add a touch of noble cause, a dollop of argument from consensus, and perhaps a twist of appeal to authority, mix well, pour over freshly baked data, and wait for reality to rise.

  118. The climate science establishment seems to be split into two factions: human-hating hippies like Lovelock; and money-hungry grant chasers who hate capitalism. Not a single, independent, high-quality professional among them.

  119. 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

  120. … 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 …

    Ah, you are referring to Jerry Falwell, perhaps? I thought so. And who would want to be associated with Falwell…

    Which is only partly tongue in cheek. Warmism is a kind of religion. People derive the same kind of satisfaction from it that they do from religion. The debate is often couched in religious terms.

    He still has wiggle room, though. Warming will happen, just not as catastrophically as he once imagined. It would be good to hear him acknowledge that it probably won’t be catastrophic at all.

    rgb

  121. oztomcd,

    Actually, there are quite a few. Lindzen, Spencer, Deming and Christy come to mind, not to mention Watts, Eschenback, Tisdale, Rawls and many others. But as scientific skeptics they get very little funding compared with the alarmist clique.

  122. 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.

  123. 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.

  124. The danger isn’t over, he just hasn’t realised but it has been the ‘wrong kind of not warming’.
    /sarc off

  125. 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

  126. The mark of a true scientist is someone who can change their mind about an hypothesis after examining the data. Do you suppose we’ll be hearing anything like this from either Mann or Hansen? Probably not. They’ve got too much skin in the game.

  127. The “problem is” you are, in the vernacular of your own country, a tosser. Why is it that the uk once the bastion of rationalism from Edinburgh to London has fallen hook and line for the AGW. Is it the cult of celebrity reflected on “post modern” fools like Lovelock and idiots in the press. If it “feels” right it must be true.

  128. So an admitted fanatic,scare-monger,pschyopathic nut-case,who has directly/indirectly caused the deaths of millions, says he was wrong. Big doddly whoop. It does not take a big man to admit a mistake(or woman). Just an HONEST one. It seems some here are falling for hero worship of Lovelock like some for Manson! Sad. The man should be in jail and/or a pysch ward.

    And Gail Coombs @ 1445 nails it.

  129. William Abbott on April 23, 2012 at 10:01 am said:
    Truth and data are stubborn things. What else can you do but climb down if you have a shred of honesty about you? Al Gore is right, the debate is over.
    ———-
    I second that.

  130. 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.

  131. SteveSadlov on April 23, 2012 at 10:40 am said:
    It is a testament to the force of Gaia that mere humans cannot control the climate!
    ———-
    Well if the Gaia thing were true it would simply mean that the human race gets trimmed back to somewhere around 19th century levels. Not that I believe the Gaia thing,

  132. 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?

  133. rgbatduke @3:32 – You just don’t get it. The damage being done to humanity by the CAGW crowd rivals that of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. The fact that these CAGW advocates are for the most part highly educated only compounds their culpability.

  134. 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.

  135. “”””” bladeshearer says:

    April 23, 2012 at 10:03 am

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

    Doesn’t matter; because others are credible.

  136. 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!

  137. 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.

  138. “”””” David J says:

    April 23, 2012 at 12:46 pm

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

    I don’t know about the rest of the world, but about half of the humans that have ever lived in North America are still alive. Maybe 20% of all humans are still alive.

  139. 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.

  140. rgbatduke,

    Generally you’ll find me polite at willing to extend common courtesy without the expectation of its reciprocity. In the case of a few people, they fall into the category of social monster.

    I have encountered none of those people in this forum. Lovelock, however, is one of those monsters and it is important for the monsters to be identified as such.

    Lovelock is not a polite old man who who has an opinion of worth and will engage in reasonable debate in a scientific field. He is an irrational activist, spewing his leftist bile and poisoning science, education and scientific discourse in the process, AND.. AND all the while demanding silence in the name of civility from his opponents.

    Yes he wants civility now that it suits him. To shut us up.

    Where was Lovelock 10 years ago when Al Gore was running rough-shod over reason?

    I understand your desire for quiet kindness and the revulsion of hypocrisy. I do not believe that strong words are inappropriate at times. I do not call for his death but I do call for his excoriation and ridicule. He has earned it. Frankly, the skeptics are not well served by his recent opinion. I prefer that he shut his asinine mouth.

    He seeks accommodation to gather credibility so he can slap us later. I deny him that.

    He is a thoughtless crazy jerk and he gets no respect from me.

    With respect to your opinion… and regards to you RGB.

  141. rossbrisbane says:
    April 23, 2012 at 5:31 pm
    “Alright that’s it. A one time prediction of projected advance of global warming proves the prophet deserves “stoning”.”

    Heh. He was your prophet. For us he was always a crackpot and a rent-seeker.

    And what does an inflated money supply have to do with temperatures? Well, maybe those billions or trillions squandered on AGW modeling and birdwackers helped.

    Better get back on your meds.

  142. 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.

  143. Good for him and his realization of self that maybe he was not as smart as he thought he was. Unfortunatly the idea took off and the money has been spent and the lives have been lost do to the mismanagement induced by his errant idea. The idea has been coopted by many including Obama and Lisa Jackson and with its corruption will never hear his new thoughts. The prolateriat never wins in the grand game of their superiors knowing all.

  144. 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.

  145. he has said what every credible climate scientist should be saying- that perhaps the level of certainty can no longer be justified. But that is probably too much to ask

  146. Otter says:

    April 23, 2012 at 4:01 pm
    wmconnolley says:

    tamino, seriously?
    You are Boring.

    You’re right–The Con isn’t worth reading and I don’t click on his links anymore.

    He definitely IS boring.

    He’s not brought one point of merit to the discussion and I’m beginning to believe his crowd is living in a morass of mediocrity they try to hype way out of proportion. *yawn*

  147. 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

  148. wmconnolley says:
    April 23, 2012 at 3:26 pm
    As has been said by a few others quoting tamino is just plain foolish the man has been a drooling worshiper at the altar of james hansen for far too long to be considered impartial or even truthful.

  149. I’m waiting for Lovelock to admit he was smoking too much kumbaya when he invented the Gaia nonscience.

  150. Lovelock and his Gaia and other theories were BS in the first place, and he and they still are BS. But, good, if those who believe in him now believe a bit more in skepticism about climate catastrophe.

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

  152. 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.

  153. Lovelock will have to sacrificed on the alter of Gaia for his heresy…. He’s a warlock! He turned me into a newt!….. Well, I got much better…. LOL!

    CAGW cultists need not worry, however, as I think these same *sigh*entists will soon change their religion to man-made global cooling, which is much scarier than CAGW.

    And so it goes….until it doesn’t…..

  154. 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.

  155. “Well, Dr. Lovelock isn’t a climate scientist…” – that’s a coded phrase that means that he isn’t or is no-longer a part of the cult. Anyone who isn’t a climate extremist fundamentalist is not considered a “climate scientist” by the cult.

  156. lenbilen, HP Avondale?

    Paullm, the body of Lovelock’s work is overwhelmingly positive, as is most or much of the environmental movement – though everything can get off track, can’t it?

  157. Praise to Professor Lovelorn for temperate thoughts: “…few remaining breeding pairs…”

    How was he preparing for his new role, I wonder?

  158. 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.

  159. I still rail at the term ‘progressive’. Like someone giving themselves their own nickname.
    “Hey there Paul, how you doin’?”
    “Call me “Spider”
    “Paul it is then.”

  160. 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

  161. By the way, I think gnomish came closest of anyone to the correct reaction to Lovelock’s statement. I might also add “wtf took you so long?”

  162. 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.”

  163. “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

  164. I wasn’t aware Lovelock had made those apocalyptic 2100 projections. The man is fundamentally a fantasist, I guess. Occasionally a reality cannonball bursts one of his mental bubbles!

  165. Better (really) late than never…

    “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
    – John Maynard Keynes

  166. Anthony says:
    “Watch the true believers now trash him in the “doddering old man” style we’ve seen before.”

    If they do that they will be right. Lovelock was deranged when he started talking about Gaia so don’t be surprised if he makes even less sense decades later.

    The real problem is that the “Media” heed crackpots like Lovelock and Hansen.

  167. 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!

  168. I wonder if Richard Black will report this as quickly as he reported the theft of documents from the Heartland Institute.

  169. 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.

  170. As one who follows the science (not just one sided mono-cultured climate mumbo jumbo or “b-og” science), I should mention that I certainly do not agree with these doom-sayer extremes. The man’s prophetic utterances have been touted as rubbish even from the CAGW camp.. As Joe Romm presented on his web site (NOW) backed up by 2009 statements, he has headlined appropriately: “James Lovelock Finally Walks Back from His Absurd Doomism, But He Still Doesn’t Follow Climate Science”.

    I too totally agree. He was never in the alarmist (CAGW) camp but an Absurd Doom-sayer. And I agree he still DOES NOT follow Climate Science but has made it up as he goes along. His predictions by 2010 are memorable predictabilities in a great swath of science misreads and exaggeration.

    Truly as one myself who went from skeptic (2005) to.firming to global warming reality, I had not heard of him until one day this organic globe argument was being thrown at me from oppositional debating side (anti-new age Christian late last year). It just shows you where I got my material from. I avoided extremes of both sides. Hence I avoided junk science like this.

    As for a cooling climate – that is maligned as much as this utterly foolish man as well. That is extreme but just polar opposite extreme to this man. The middle path is always best.

    .

  171. 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?

  172. 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.

  173. Allan MacRae says:
    April 23, 2012 at 9:57 pm
    Better (really) late than never…
    “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
    – John Maynard Keynes

    When the facts change, I’ll change my mind. Since the facts have remained the same, I’ll just continue to cultivate my curmudgeonly image…

  174. Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
    I think this is pretty meaningful, although you should read some of the contrary garbage in the associated comments,
    ““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 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 was wrong, is prepared to admit this in the face of contradictory scientific evidence and is brave enough to do so in public.
    Whilst other alarmists are seeking less honourable avenues and denying the obvious, James Lovelock should be praised for his honesty and realistic approach.

  175. As far as I’m concerned he lost all of his credibility along time ago. I won’t be seeking out his book .. It’ll be plain crap!

  176. I think gnomish encapsulates sheeple behavior quite well.
    Billions of people are still going to die from lack of food because of unavailable energy and increasing cold. So for the greenies this is a win-win situation. What ever happens now the population will be reduced.

  177. Lovelock should probably edit his Wiki article before old age catches up with him, and hope that Connolley has the decency to leave it alone…

  178. Note once again how the ice sites have frozen data to 4 days ago probably means ice has now definitely gone well over the normal line and they are trying to work around it to hide more inclines

  179. The stragegist in me says: “now is the time to make sure every politician knows about this”.

    The sceptic in me says: “so what?”

    What accolade can you give to someone who supposedly bases what they say o the evidence who now realises are years of fire & brimstone preaching that the evidence doesn’t support what they said?

    Let’s put it this way: what does one say to a criminal who for years has gained a very good lifestyle through crime, who seeing the police closing in, declares: “I have seen the light … some crime is bad”.

    Do we:
    a) Give them a nighthood
    b) Applaud them.
    c) Lock them up and throw away the key unless or until they admit their whole life was based on crime and make suitable recompense.

    Arise Sir Lovelock … defender of the status quo.

  180. The thing which always surprised me about Lovelock’s stance is that his Gaia hypothesis is one of the most holistic-, self-sustaining, self-regulating, return-to-equilibrium theories around. But his global warming stuff was that of stretching a spring beyond Hook’s Law……

    Lovelock should be well capable of examining climate as an holistic system and see what theories he comes up with as a result……

    Big man to say what he has said though…..

  181. @R. Shearer
    So he helped cause the death of millions from malaria through the global outlawing of DDT. Good job, well done. /sarc

  182. I find it hard to aggree with those here who applaud Lovelock for changing his mind and being a ‘good scientist’, if the dogmatic nature of his previous statements are as quoted.
    It is possible to be legitimately wrong in science. If I calculate say, a 75 percent chance of some event, I could reasonably say “It is likely that…” If then the opposite, with a 25 percent probability occurs, then I am wrong about the outcome but not necessarily wrong in my understanding. If however I were to say “This WILL happen”, as Lovelock is quoted as saying, then I imply a 100 percent chance, and if then another outcome results, it must be that I am wrong in my understanding. If he now believes his own hypothesis is wrong, this implies one of two things, either the data he based his original opinions on were wrong, or he was wrong to come to a absolute conclusion based on the data he had. the third possibility, that the data were correct and complete, cannot be consistent with his change of mind, what he said before then must either be considered advocacy or bad science.

  183. In 2006, in an article in the U.K.’s Independent newspaper, [Lovelock] wrote that “before this century is over billions of us will die…’

    Given his advanced age, I would think Mr Lovelock might be among those billions destined to die before the end of this century – along with most everyone else alive today. I expect this surmise to be true regardless of what the weather (sorry, climate) does.

  184. rossbrisbane says:
    April 23, 2012 at 5:31 pm
    ‘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.’

    Yes, the wind is coming ross.

  185. In an earlier comment I referred to an interview that James Lovelock had given to the Guardian in the wake of ‘climategate’.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock

    For those who are not familiar with this man, here are some more of the quotes from that interview which many readers here will find surprising.

    “Science, not so very long ago, pre-1960s, was largely vocational. Back when I was young, I didn’t want to do anything else other than be a scientist. They’re not like that nowadays. They don’t give a damn. They go to these massive, mass-produced universities and churn them out. They say: “Science is a good career. You can get a job for life doing government work.” That’s no way to do science….Science was always elitist and has to be elitist. The very idea of diluting it down [to be more egalitarian] is crazy. We’re paying the price for it now.

    I would only have been too pleased if someone had asked me for my data. If you really believed in your data, you wouldn’t mind someone looking at it. You should be able to respond that if you don’t believe me go out and do the measurements yourself. You don’t hide data.
    We tend to now get carried away by our giant computer models. But they’re not complete models…. They don’t take into account the climate of the oceans to any great extent, or the responses of the living stuff on the planet. So I don’t see how they can accurately predict the climate. It’s not the computational power that we lack today, but the ability to take what we know and convert it into a form the computers will understand. If you make a model, after a while you get suckered into it. You begin to forget that it’s a model and think of it as the real world. You really start to believe it.
    The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet.
    We’re very tribal. You’re either a goodie or a baddie. I’ve got quite a few friends among the sceptics….there are some sceptics that I fully respect. Nigel Lawson is one. He writes sensibly and well. He raises questions. I find him an interesting sceptic. What I like about sceptics is that in good science you need critics that make you think…If you don’t have that continuously, you really are up the creek. The good sceptics have done a good service, but some of the mad ones I think have not done anyone any favours.
    It’s deplorable for the BBC whenever one of these issues comes up to go and ask what one of the green lobbyists thinks of it. Sometimes their view might be quite right, but it might also be pure propaganda.

    We do need scepticism about the predictions about what will happen to the climate in 50 years, or whatever. It’s almost naive, scientifically speaking, to think we can give relatively accurate predictions for future climate. There are so many unknowns that it’s wrong to do it.

    I don’t know enough abut carbon trading, but I suspect that it is basically a scam. The whole thing is not very sensible. “

  186. Brent Hargreaves says:
    April 24, 2012 at 2:17 am
    Hey, wouldn’t it be nice if Michael Mann seconded Lovelock’s pronouncement?!

    ——-

    If it isn’t before a judge at his incarceration hearing, then I suspect he, too, will be in his 90s before he admits it…

  187. The impetus for this revelation was the unpredicted halt in warming. I believe Hansen is STILL fudging by claiming the on-going halt in warming is caused by Chinese aerosols. Others are fudging by claiming it’s a purely natural slowdown (due to ocean cycles previously not accounted for) which will be overcome by AGW in the coming decades (always forgetting that a natural uptick would have been preceded the downtick and how that would affect previous assessments of attribution and feedback response). You can’t help but sense that they are grabbing at straws, and always have been.

  188. rossbrisbane says:
    April 23, 2012 at 11:14 pm
    ” The man’s prophetic utterances have been touted as rubbish even from the CAGW camp.”

    He was one of the founding fathers of your cult as I documented above, so this statement from you means you throw the Great Prophet under the bus.

    “As Joe Romm presented on his web site (NOW) backed up by 2009 statements, he has headlined appropriately: “James Lovelock Finally Walks Back from His Absurd Doomism, But He Still Doesn’t Follow Climate Science”.”

    And Crazy Joe throws him under the Bus.
    Now, suddenly, he was always too alarmist for you sensible warmists.
    Never bothered the lot of you as long as you thought extreme scares would be working.

  189. Lovelock has been “awarded the prestigious Edinburgh Medal” which Hansen received lately.
    Very “prestigious” obviously.

  190. Bill Tuttle says: April 23, 2012 at 11:29 pm

    Allan MacRae says: April 23, 2012 at 9:57 pm
    Better (really) late than never…
    “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
    – John Maynard Keynes

    Bill said:
    When the facts change, I’ll change my mind. Since the facts have remained the same, I’ll just continue to cultivate my curmudgeonly image…
    ______________

    Make that a double Bill. As I’ve said previously, my position on the science of global warming has remained the same – specifically: “there is no global warming crisis”.

    I first started studying the alleged global warming crisis (CAGW) circa 1985, and thought it was wrong then. Since then, the CAGW BS pile has grown huge and odiferous. I finally got the courage to write about it in ~2002, and wrote some of the first anti-global warming articles in the National Post and other papers and journals.

    My articles discussed climate science and energy, and were respectful of the other side, since I initially assumed that the warming alarmists were just scientifically misguided.

    In this regard I now think I was wrong – the ClimateGate emails and much other evidence points to a deliberate campaign of conspiracy, deceit and fraud by a close-knit cabal centered at CRU, GISS and the IPCC. The Mann-made global warming hockey stick was obviously false from inception (due to “grafting” of dissimilar datasets), although it took some time for the shocking deception now called the “Divergence Problem” to appear, and for Steve McIntyre and others to dissect the many more falsehoods hidden in that work.

    The CAGW fraud was obvious long before the ClimateGate1 emails appeared. By circa 2003 or 2004 I was certain that CAGW was a deliberate lie. It has been a difficult decade, as the scoundrels and imbeciles of CAGW squandered a trillion dollars of scarce global resources on an obvious fraud.

    It appears the CAGW tide is turning, Not only is the world refusing to warm, but it may soon cool. I predicted imminent global cooling in a 2003 article, but I really hope I am wrong. Global cooling will not be good for humanity or the environment.

    If global cooling is severe, mankind will suffer greatly, and ironically, we will be woefully unprepared – just one more legacy of the CAGW fraudsters.

  191. pat says:
    April 23, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    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

    ====================gee thanks for that one Pat,
    only today on ABC National we had ??carr? over in china, telling us how they were making such big headway in renewables and how theyd sold US in aus so many direct drive Birdshredders as well. the full rave up on their big moves to carbon Ets etc..
    well this blows that away:-)

  192. Well, Dr. Lovelock isn’t a climate scientist and I (and most other climate scientists I guess) didn’t really take much notice of his views when they were rather alarmist. I don’t take that much notice of his pronouncements now.

    So Monty, where were you and these other scientists when Lovelock was making the wildly alarmist claims? And where will you be when others continue to make them?

    You silently take the benefits of the alarmism (power, recognition, government grants etc), you share the shame. At least Lovelock has shown some integrity.

  193. I’ll certainly give him credit for publicly admitting that he was wrong. This is something sadly lacking in the climate change community.
    Unfortunately Lovelock has written so much drivel in the past that it’s difficult to take him seriously.
    Chris

  194. > Sean McHugh says> So Monty, where were you and these other scientists when Lovelock was making the wildly alarmist claims?

    Dunno about Monty, but I’ve already provided an answer to that
    * me
    * James Annan

    This comment thread isn’t write-only, you know.

  195. I can hear 2,000 keyboards being clicked to prove good old Lovelock wrong. My God, he’s a treacherous, hell-ridden turncoat, a deserter of the good cause! He’s even ceased sweating away during the sweltering winters we were told to experience!
    Anyway, I’ll ask my loving granny to knit a few more pairs of the best socks ever derived from virgin wool … just to be on the safe side in case Lovejoylock recants.
    As you know, brethren in Christ: You never know with these guys. :-)

  196. Lovelock is back with a new position, not out of a realisation that his previous pronouncements were ridiculous, but because of his new book.
    You can’t sell a new book saying the same as the last. Spouting alarmist nonsense in the earlier book gave him lots of attention. Abruptly changing his position will provide him with more media attention.
    He was an idiot before… I doubt he’s “recovered”.

  197. @wmconnolley says: April 23, 2012 at 3:26 pm

    using Tamino as a source? You merely demonstrated your incompetence to edit Wikipedia – and proved the posters point. If it is in Tamino – it is wrong.

  198. Maybe said recanter has been watching sea ice graphs. The catastrophic, anthropogenic, canary-in-the-mine, tipping point, downward sea ice spiral so often pictured with stranded “poor lil’ poley bars” appears to be reversing its spiral back the other way. It’s almost as if Gaia wanted us to run around screaming that the sky was falling just so she could say “syke”.

  199. I see the Warmist spinmeisters are busy spinning and moving goal posts:

    “Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the U.K.’s respected Met Office Hadley Centre, agreed Lovelock had been too alarmist with claims about people having to live in the Arctic by 2100.

    And he also agreed with Lovelock that the rate of warming in recent years had been less than expected by the climate models.

    However, Stott said this was a short-term trend that could be within the natural range of variation and it would need to continue for another 10 years or so before it could be considered evidence that something was missing from climate models.”
    In their fevered imaginations, this is just a lull. The warming is on a coffee break, taking a breather, and will be back later, stronger than ever. Anything to keep the CAGW gravy train chugging along just a bit further, at least until retirement. Imagine the legacy they are building for themselves.

  200. Lovelock has said many things in the past, many of them crazy, such as climate alarmism he has been ramping for over a decade now.

    But Connolley is introducing his own fallacy here. Sometimes brilliant people say crazy things. Sometimes crazy people say brilliant things. Each statement must be assessed on its merits, and we should not dismiss (or accept) one thing because another thing they said was crazy (or brilliant).

    In this instance, we can all agree that Lovelock’s climate alarmism was unfounded (well except for some diehard enviros, I guess). But that doesn’t make his most recent statements crazy or irrational at all. If we are being objective, we should assess each comment on its merits; and Lovelock’s latest are actually pretty reasonable. Which I accept is unusual for him, but all the same: he’s right here.

    Connolley hypes sea ice in the same way Al Gore hyped hurricanes. North Atlantic hurricanes spiked up in 04/05 so Gore (at many climate scientists) cherry picked and claimed a link. That link is now long since debunked by Maue, so the alarmists move on to the next data set that has spiked – this time, sea ice spiked down around 07/08. With moderate probability, in five years time the sea ice meme will look as stupid as the hurricane meme does now. The alarmists will have moved on to whichever data set looks most anomalous, but by then they will have long lost the general public.

    Connolley doesn’t get that. Tamino doesn’t get that. And they never will, because their advocacy blinds them to it.

  201. “Holy Dingbats, Batman! Lovelock has connected the dots!”

    “Quickly, Robin! Launch the ad hominem missiles!”

    “Shall I fire up the solar-powered Batbus?”

    “Great green boondoggles, no, Robin! We must throw him under a bus that runs faster than he does.”

  202. There seem to be quite a few “skeptics” here dissing Lovelock for past sins. Odd that I’ve never seen many of these skeptics here before. I suspect at least some of them are gleicking.

  203. wmconnolley seems to believe in warming “pipelines”. They “know” it’s there, somewhere, just waiting to jump out at us and say boo! Maybe if they click their heels together and wish hard enough, it will happen.

  204. James Lovelock was an idiot before and remains an idiot now. He is able to change his mind so quickly because there is so little in it. Even though he now speaks an obvious truth, I wouldn’t bother lisening too much to him.

  205. Icarus62 is correct, but for the wrong reasons. There has been no decrease in anthropogenic global warming because as far as our data show, the rate still remains at zero, where it has always been since the inception of this nonsense. The data are inconclusive for any truly GLOBAL warming at all, let alone anthropogenic warming. I applaud Dr. Lovelock for remaining true to our older professional ethical standards and telling the truth as his data and his impartial analysis thereof lead him to see it.

  206. An alarmist fruitcake becomes a skeptical fruitcake. Except for propaganda purpose, I see nothing of benefit here as I am not in favor of science propaganda for any reason, cause or agenda. It is evidence of nothing. Reality simply IS. It is enough. GK

  207. Old Shooter says:
    because as far as our data show, the rate still remains at zero, where it has always been since the inception of this nonsense.

    Henry says
    sorry man.
    even that statement I now find wanting.
    I checked it out myself. Technically we are cooling, if I look at it averaged globally,
    actually already since 1994…

    http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here

    We have cooled about 0.2 degrees in the past 12 years.

  208. Spence_UK says:
    April 24, 2012 at 6:37 am

    Pragmatic, logical, fair. You’ve schooled a few with that post. Thank you.

  209. As an “old school” Green and systems designer I’ve always had a soft spot for Jim Lovelock and the concept of a homeostatic planet. I him at a “Revenge of Gaia” talk he gave here in Cornwall 4 or 5 years ago, and it was actually the shock of what he said in that talk which first got me interested in Global Warming, and then through Icecap and WUWT I found that not everyone agreed with it, which led me to want to find out more directly myself. So, FWIW, you can pretty much thank Lovelock directly as the root cause of the creation of WoodForTrees :-)

    As what you might call a scientific Gaia-ite – that is, believing that ecosystems can evolve homeostasis as well as species (sorry, Dawkins, I part company with you there) – one of the reasons I felt uncomfortable with Lovelock’s predictions of calamity was that it seemed to go against the whole idea of stable negative feedbacks which is the core of the Gaia concept. But one thing he said in that talk got me seriously worried, and that worry hasn’t gone away.

    The problem is, he pointed out, is we are destroying the negative feedback mechanisms themselves; for example, through deforestation and soil loss we are removing the capacity both to regulate the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and cloud seeding from bacteria and evapotranspiration. So negative feedbacks may well be saving us now, but may not survive forever if we keep sabotaging them. That to me suggests that all those traditional Green issues are still worth thinking about…

    Best wishes

    Paul

  210. Bruce Cobb says:
    April 24, 2012 at 7:04 am

    wmconnolley seems to believe in warming “pipelines”. They “know” it’s there, somewhere, just waiting to jump out at us and say boo! Maybe if they click their heels together and wish hard enough, it will happen.

    Are you saying that Bill is an optimist? Digging into the pile of poop, all the while proclaiming “I know there is a pony in there somewhere”? ;-)

  211. Dunno what fallacy you’re attributing to me.

    Yeah, I gathered that.

    I certainly didn’t say what you’re claiming.

    I didn’t quote you, so I didn’t make any explicit claim about what you did or did not say. I explained in some detail the anatomy of the spin in your commentary, which is more about context. Nice red herring though.

  212. woodfortrees (Paul Clark) says: April 24, 2012 at 7:45 am

    The problem is, he (Lovelock) pointed out, is we are destroying the negative feedback mechanisms themselves; for example, through deforestation and soil loss we are removing the capacity both to regulate the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and cloud seeding from bacteria and evapotranspiration. So negative feedbacks may well be saving us now, but may not survive forever if we keep sabotaging them. That to me suggests that all those traditional Green issues are still worth thinking about…
    __________

    Hello Paul,

    Without necessarily agreeing with Lovelock and his concepts, which I have not studied, I can agree with you that “traditional Green issues are still worth thinking about”.

    The problem is that valid environmentalism has been hijacked for political and financial gain by the global warming alarmist movement. The real environmental issues have not gone away – some are getting better and many are getting worse.

    Meanwhile, the radical environmental movement has diverted political focus to fantasies like catastrophic manmade global warming (CAGW) and real, serious social and environmental issues have been left in the dust.

  213. deliciouslygrey says: @ April 23, 2012 at 4:26 pm

    ….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?
    __________________________________
    My WAG is plants.

    …The CO2 concentration at 2 m above the crop was found to be fairly constant during the daylight hours on single days or from day-to-day throughout the growing season ranging from about 310 to 320 p.p.m. Nocturnal values were more variable and were between 10 and 200 p.p.m. higher than the daytime values.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0002157173900034

    Plant photosynthetic activity can reduce the CO2 within the plant canopy to between 200 and 250 ppm… I observed a 50 ppm drop in within a tomato plant canopy just a few minutes after direct sunlight at dawn entered a green house (Harper et al 1979) … photosynthesis can be halted when CO2 concentration approaches 200 ppm… (Morgan 2003) Carbon dioxide is heavier than air and does not easily mix into the greenhouse atmosphere by diffusion… Source

    Given decent growing conditions (water, fertilizer, sunlight & temp) the limiting factor on plant growth seems to be CO2. That is why greenhouses use 1000ppm or higher. The wheat experiment seems to indicate the plants will suck down as much CO2 as they can grab lowering the ambient CO2 to the point where the amount is too low for use ~ 250 -300 ppm. Wheat is the less efficient C3 type of plant. In C4 plants photosynthesis is 6 times faster than in C3 plants. C4 plants use a reaction way called C4 way. This reaction is followed by C3 way. The C4 way provides more CO2 to the C3 way.
    CAM plants also use C3 and C4 ways. The difference is that the stomata of CAM plants are opened during night and CO2 is stored for use during the day. C4 plants are more efficient at fixing carbon dioxide under conditions of high light and temperature… One aspect of C4 plants is a specialized leaf anatomy, where mesophyll cells (light green) surround bundle-sheath cells (dark green)… The mesophyll cells contain a CO2 “pump”, which concentrate carbon-dioxide in the bundle-sheath cells

    Experimental results show corn plants (C4) seem to be able to suck CO2 down to levels of about 265 ppm during the day depending on the height above the plant. http://eprints.nwisrl.ars.usda.gov/482/1/60.pdf

    If Callender was correct and the earth was originally at 270ppm before we started burning fossil fuels, I am sure the plants are thanking us for providing them with a much needed nutrient.

  214. Allan MacRae says: @ April 23, 2012 at 9:57 pm
    ….It appears the CAGW tide is turning, Not only is the world refusing to warm, but it may soon cool. I predicted imminent global cooling in a 2003 article, but I really hope I am wrong. Global cooling will not be good for humanity or the environment.

    If global cooling is severe, mankind will suffer greatly, and ironically, we will be woefully unprepared – just one more legacy of the CAGW fraudsters.
    _____________________________________
    I am afraid I agree with you. I never believed CAGW but then I paid attention to the Global Cooling scare of the 1970’s and its debunking.

    The Little Ice Age was about 400 yrs ago If you look at Dr. Richard Feynman’s sister’s work NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records

    …Feynman said that while ancient Nile and auroral records are generally “spotty,” that was not the case for the particular 850-year period they studied….

    The researchers found some clear links between the sun’s activity and climate variations. The Nile water levels and aurora records had two somewhat regularly occurring variations in common – one with a period of about 88 years and the second with a period of about 200 years….

    ABSTRACT-
    ….Solar Wolf- Gleissberg periodicity is marked in a wide range of terrestrial evidences since millions of years and is still at work. It is found that climatic fluctuations are induced at the turning points of such cycles.

    In order to solve this problem, it is found that there are three types of solar cycles occurring on the sun namely, those occurring during Maunder minimum anomalies that caused the very cold weather in the little ice age (1645-1715), normal sunspots and low amplitude (weak sunspots of longer duration) occurring in the shallow dip in between successive Wolf- Gleissberg cycles. The later ones also induce cooling of the air and sea surface temperatures…..

    Climate fluctuations are known from, sharp rises or falls of lakes levels, temperature anomalies, change in the general wind circulation and droughts and flood- Hazards. Yousef (1995a) predicted the downturn of solar activity in 1997 with the start of weak low amplitude fast rotation and longer duration sunspot cycle 23. This is evidently confirmed by the sharp rise of lake Victoria level in 1997-98. Lean (2001) is also seeing a drop in the solar irradiance which might be the start of a longer term drop. Since that is the case, then 1997 is a year of climate fluctuation and a drop of global earth air and sea temperature is predicted soon similar to that happened during similar circumstances around 1800 and 1900, with increased El Nino and La Nina frequencies leading to wide spread flood -drought hazards and God knows best….

    1-INTRODUCTION

    Solar variations can be of the order of 11-yr. sunspot cycle, the 22-yr. oscillations in the solar polar magnetic field. A longer variation of roughly 80-yr.(Krivsky 1995, Hoyt and Schatten 1997), referred to as the Wolf-Gleissberg cycle. As far as long periodicities are concerned, proxy data help build up a rather stronger case for the 80 to 90 year and 180 to 200 year cycles(Burroughs 1992). Carbon-14, which responds to solar variations, has reported cycle of around 200 years. This same cycle also shows up in such other climate proxies as the oxygen-18/oxygen-16 ratio used to measure oceanic temperatures ,and tree-rings, which respond to precipitation and temperature. These results suggests sun/climate connection( Hoyt and Schatten 1997). In addition, on the long time scale, historical accounts for the absence of sunspots and coincident drop in aurora reports mark a period of solar inactivity known as Maunder Minimum (1645-1715),Eddy (1978). It is now generally believed that 14C anomalies in tree rings of known ages mark times in the past when other weaker solar activity episodes have occurred. Episodes of anomalously strong activity are indicated as well. The interval between anomalies varies, but is perhaps characteristically around 400 yr. Stuiver Braziunas (1992) reported oscillations with a period of 416 year…

    http://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf

    Many such as Dr Lief Svalgaard, do not think the Sun has much to do with the climate at least short term. I think the jury is still out on the subject and the next few decades will tell us much. Hopefully we will have enough civilization left to be able to actually study the sun and climate interaction. The jury is still out on that subject too. (ample Energy = Civilization)

  215. ”wmconnolley says:
    April 24, 2012 at 7:40 am

    HenryP says:> Technically we are cooling, if I look at it averaged globally, actually already since 1994

    Only if you have a truely weird defn of “cooling”: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1994/plot/wti/from:1994/trend/plot/uah/from:1994/plot/uah/from:1994/trend
    ”’

    You did not read how HenryP came up with his values. he is correct, your link refers to a different data source. Try reading the original post first before making your conclusion which basically says that ‘Apples are not oranges’

  216. HenryP says:> wmconnoley says: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/23/breaking-james-lovelock-back-down-on-climate-alarm/#comment-965838
    Henry says> so, in your graphs, where are the red and blue trendlines?

    Err, they are the green and pink lines. But the page is very easy to use – you can redraw it for yourself.

    > Are you saying my sample was not random? http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here

    I’ve no idea. But its clearly a very small sample of the world’s met stations. You might have deliberately mis-sampled; you might just have happened to pick a bad sample. I shouldnt’t have to guess: you should have clearly stated why you picked those stations, and why you’d used so few. It hardly matters, if what you’re interested in is global temps, then what you’ve done is clearly wrong. If you happen to be interested in the local temps at those stations it might be right.

    Notice how none of the so-called “skeptics” here bothered even to look at your stuff. After all, you told them there was cooling not warming, so they aren’t going to care about the details.

    Gail Combs says:> the Global Cooling scare of the 1970′s

    You want http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling or just search my blog.

  217. Gail Combs quotes
    Since that is the case, then 1997 is a year of climate fluctuation and a drop of global earth air and sea temperature is predicted soon similar to that happened during similar circumstances around 1800 and 1900,

    Henry@Gail
    You might find this interesting..

    http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here

    My sample shows that warming turned to cooling somehwere during 1994.

  218. RE
    Gail Combs says:
    @ April 24, 2012 at 6:13 pm

    Thankyou Gail. I always learn a lot from your posts. I keep a scrap-book of information-rich posts/material from WUWT/ other sites/ published and unpublished works. Pieces under your name appear consistently. So please accept my gratitude. Your efforts are much appreciated.

  219. WMConnoly says

    I’ve no idea. But its clearly a very small sample of the world’s met stations.

    Henry says

    You clearly have no idea. You only have one measuring station, and it refers only to the lower tropical mean where it measures constantly, presumeably always at the same spot or range. Your method is heavily dependent on calibration.

    With the method I used I don’t rely much on calibration because I looked at the differences in temperature compared to its average measured over a certain time period…
    I have 44 measuring points all over and I sampled in such a way that I balanced my table by latitude as well as 70/30 sea /land as much as possible. Longitude is not important as the earth rotates every 24 hour. Perhaps the only bias was in chosing weather stations that have a complete record or where the record was almost complete.

    It is true that I am currently (still) the only one who is making the claim that global cooling has already started and that we dropped by 0.2 degrees C from 2000. – I fear there are perhaps too few scientists interested in climate change that finished their studies in Statistics….

  220. HenryP says:> You clearly have no idea. You only have one measuring station, and it refers only to the lower tropical mean where it measures constantly, presumeably always at the same spot or range.

    Sigh. The data I’ve drawn is global. The UAH stuff… well, you can look it up. Wiki will tell you about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_record You really need to get out more. Try upgrading to a better class of blog, perhaps, where you’ll get some more feedback? I’m out of this thread, though.

  221. I’ll just parachute in here to mention that in addition to scientists like Connolley and Annan, the non-scientist climate hawk bloggers also called out Lovelock in ’06 as being full of it. See, e.g., me:

    http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2006/01/should-we-do-anything-about-lovelock.html

    “exaggerations like his just get the environmentalists in trouble, even the people who don’t exaggerate. How do we rein him in? Is it through a bet offer?”

    also Tim Lambert:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/01/global_warming_alarmism.php

    Carry on….

  222. Story hit the MSM here in Oz, with an editorial comment in The Australian newspaper today.

  223. wmconnoly says
    Try upgrading to a better class of blog, perhaps, where you’ll get some more feedback? I’m out of this thread, though.

    Henry says
    Well, when you do come back to honour us with your presence, do tell me how many measuring instruments you used to get to your quoted graph.

Comments are closed.