James Lovelock on Climate Prediction: “I’ve grown up a bit since then.”

A 2005 photograph of James Lovelock, scientist and author best known for the Gaia hypothesis.

A 2005 photograph of James Lovelock, scientist and author best known for the Gaia hypothesis. By The original uploader was Bruno Comby at English Wikipedia – Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons., CC BY-SA 1.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3873472

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t RichardJames Lovelock, inventor of the Gaia hypothesis which underpins much of modern environmentalism, now thinks global warming is a religion. He also points out Singapore, one of the warmest cities in the world, is also one of the most desirable places to live.

What has changed dramatically, however, is his position on climate change. He now says: “Anyone who tries to predict more than five to 10 years is a bit of an idiot, because so many things can change unexpectedly.” But isn’t that exactly what he did last time we met? “I know,” he grins teasingly. “But I’ve grown up a bit since then.”

Lovelock now believes that “CO2 is going up, but nowhere near as fast as they thought it would. The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact,” he goes on breezily, “I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change. You’ve only got to look at Singapore. It’s two-and-a-half times higher than the worst-case scenario for climate change, and it’s one of the most desirable cities in the world to live in.”

But there is a third explanation for why he has shifted his position again, and nowadays feels “laid back about climate change”. All things being equal – “and it’s only got to take one sizable volcano to erupt and all the models, everything else, is right off the board”

Lovelock maintains that, unlike most environmentalists, he is a rigorous empiricist, but it is manifestly clear that he enjoys maddening the green movement. “Well, it’s a religion, really, you see. It’s totally unscientific.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/30/james-lovelock-interview-by-end-of-century-robots-will-have-taken-over

Lovelock also points out that the rise of robots will completely invalidate concerns about people becoming “heat stressed” performing manual labour. As an IT specialist I have to say completely agree with him on this. Just as smart phones have evolved from huge bricks into intricate computerised assistants, so will the clunky automated vacuum cleaners and other automated appliances of today rapidly evolve into machines which take care of daily housework, and other manual tasks.

What I find most remarkable is that The Guardian is giving airtime to this climate heresy. Perhaps they are testing the water, to see how readers react.

After all, it is obvious to anyone remotely objective that the green religion is dying. It won’t take too many more South Australia style renewable energy disasters to completely finish what remains of the credibility of the green movement.

Advertisements

186 thoughts on “James Lovelock on Climate Prediction: “I’ve grown up a bit since then.”

      • OK, this thread is full of ignorant ranting against Lovelock by lots of people who have quite clearly never read any of his work or books and are just venting a general frustration against climate alarmism projected onto him as if he were the godfather CAGW.

        So how about those who have no idea what they are talking about find out before commenting.

        http://www.jameslovelock.org/page37.html

        The Gaia hypothesis postulates that the climate and chemical composition of the Earth’s surface environ- ment is, and has been, regulated at a state tolerable for the biota. This notion was introduced in 1972 and 1973 (Lovelock, 1972; Margulis and Lovelock, 1974; Lovelock and Margulis, 1973). The wording of these early papers was sometimes poetic, rather than scientific, but Gaia has matured and might be better stated as a theory that views the evolution of the biota and of their material environment as a single, tightly coupled process, with the self-regulation of climate and chemistry as an emergent property.


        Before the nineteenth century, scientists were comfortable with the notion of a living Earth. One of them was J. Hutton, who has often been called the father of geology. Hutton [1788] likened the Earth to a superorganism and recommended physiology as the science for its investigation. He belonged to the circulation society, a scientific society that was inspired by physiological discoveries which explained phenomena such as the circulation of the blood and the connection between oxygen and life. He applied these ideas to his view of the hydrological cycle and the movements of the nutritious elements of the Earth.

      • Janice, I think Lovelock ate all the mushrooms years ago. They may be wearing off. I’ll just have to find some cake instead. OOOPSE TOO MUCH.

      • Greg, the contribution of James Hutton was the direct observation that the”present is the key to the past”, later stated, by Lyell, as Uniformitarianism. Hutton may have been licking frogs and seeing alternate realities in his spare time (he was a man of many interests) but the founding of modern geology, as a science, began with him. It works like this: I take young geologists into the field and stop at a river showing signs of a recent flood cycle, we look at the architecture of the cycle, especially gravel bars and the material trapped behind them, material like dead animals and trees. Then we go on to the great Cretaceous outcrops and see, from 100 million years ago, gravel bars with petrified trees and dinosaur bones behind them. Here’s a thought, if we can use the present to go back in time with our understanding, can we use the past to make predictions about the future? Like an Ice Age will eventually put an end to the Professor Mann hockey stick mind set? Gaia? I never saw her (?) in the field.

    • So what is rong with the Gaia hypothesis.

      I have always said that Mother Gaia, is just the Empress of Maxwell’s demons, and she sees all and knows all about everything in the universe but she tells us nothing.

      She knows the serial number of every one of the Avogadro’s number of molecules in a gram mole of anything. so she knows exactly which one is where in the Maxwell -Boltzmann energy distribution, at any time, so she can watch them shift from pixel to pixel keeping the same distribution, but never letting us know which one is where.

      She also knows the Temperature of everything, so she knows what the global temperature is supposed to be so she makes sure it is that value at all times.

      Well she is in control and we are not, so if things aren’t what you expect; you are mistaken, because they always are what they are supposed to be.

      In fact, there isn’t any means by which they could be other than what they are supposed to be, and Mother Gaia makes sure they always are correct.

      G

      • … Mother Gaia, is just the Empress of Maxwell’s demons, …

        She knows the serial number of every one of the Avogadro’s number of molecules in a gram mole of anything. so she knows exactly which one is where in the Maxwell -Boltzmann energy distribution, at any time, so she can watch them shift from pixel to pixel keeping the same distribution, but never letting us know which one is where.

        To store and process the amount of information required to implement Lady Gaia would require an entity bigger than the universe.

        I realize that Maxwell’s demon should not exist but I have never seen a convincing proof that it can not exist.

      • Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis was nothing to do with a deity or religion, it was a scientific hypothesis that the biosphere could be regarded as a large complex super organism, in a similar way to regarding and ant colony as one organism rather than thousands of ants.

        That is a perfectly valid idea.

        Knowing his provocative style, calling it Gaia was probably a bit tongue in cheek, but it was a scientific idea, not a pagan one.

      • Still, Greg, if James Lovelock had remained connected and devoted to the modern green movement instead of becoming a global-warming blasphemer, he might have received the honor of becoming one of Gaia’s high priests by now. His concern about mundane things like science and speaking the truth caused him to miss out on becoming a leader in the new Gaia religion.

      • So defendith: Greg – October 2, 2016 at 5:57 pm

        Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis was nothing to do with a deity or religion, it was a scientific hypothesis that ………….

        What is being claimed above is a literal fact which was confirmed to be “true” by the Flying Spaghetti Monster some 50 or 19 ¾ years ago at a meeting of the world’s greatest Global Warming Climate Scientists.

      • What is wrong with Gaia is that it switches cause and effect. ‘something’ does not ‘regulate the climate to take care of its species’

        It’s species adapt to whatever climate throws at them.

        Its a GOD based theory, not a science based one.

        .

      • Leo, I see you have never read any of Lovelock’s books.
        Beyond that, the fact that many animals can an do influence the climate around them has been known for decades, if not centuries. So you claim that animals have no choice but to accept the climate that is thrown at them is religious, not scientific.

      • If
        “there isn’t any means by which they could be other than what they are supposed to be”
        what could ‘Mother Gaia’ have to do wit any of it?

      • the fact that many animals can an do influence the climate around them has been known for decades, if not centuries.

        MarkW, other than the human animal that controls the climate in his/her house or home via use of an A/C, fans or heating furnace ….. were there other animal species you were thinking of, and if so, name 2 or 4 of them so that I will know what they are.

    • Ahh… but there is hope. The Liberal government in Ontario just last week, quietly cancelled all future wind farms in the province. This after forcing electricity rates to the highest in the world and losing a by-election in a Liberal stronghold riding in Suburban Toronto (Scarborough).

  1. Lovelock is an idiot. I mean, Singapore has been a wonderful place to live for decades- did he only just notice ?? What is it about supposed genii that they can make absurd statements, and then a few years later say they were wrong and then just make a bunch of new absurd statements ? He is still an idiot.

    • He is not an idiot unless you believe that idiots can invent super sensitive measurement tools such as the electron capture detector.

      • He’s just testing out which tall stories people will fall for. People like him change their message every ten years or so, and the gullible among us fall for it every time. Because they need to believe. And when they have a strong need, they are also willing to pay.

    • Seems he made a good living off soothsaying for a long time. Now that he’s only got a few years left, he’s probably making a bit more on the side by recanting.

      Epitaph: “He was wrong about a great many things.”

    • You are dead wrong. To have someone like Lovelock, who is 97 and still sharp as a tack, change his perspective like this is encouraging.

  2. ImranCan. He has found the truth, you should welcome him to the fold. Singapore has always been hot and stick, There is nothing absurd in his statements? And he has become a realist, certainly is not an idiot.

    • It’s hilarious. Back when he was a climate alarmist, the greenies praised him from head to toe. He was their brilliant old sage, their science hero.

      But a few years ago when he showed early signs of turning to the climate skeptic side, suddenly they began calling him a senile old man and an idiot. Lol!

      Lefties, I don’t know how they get along each day, I really don’t.

  3. No no no, he misread the script. You’re not supposed to -back- down, you’re supposed to -double- down. As in, “You deniers just don’t get it and you never will!” That’s how its supposed to go.

    You: “Show me some evidence.”
    Them: “I showed you already!”
    You: “Your evidence only shows mild, beneficial warming, not civilization-terminating disaster.”
    Them: “Denier!!”

    That’s how its supposed to go.

    • I suppose we should read the article and discover how they are reporting and then attempting to paper over this? heh

      • The Guardian article is really worth reading. There’s more detail there about his support for fracking and nuclear energy. With Lovelock and Freeman Dyson we have the two most eminent nonagenarian scientists now clearly AGW sceptics!

    • I believe several large snowballs are currently being assembled into a snowman down there, if this report is accurate..

    • “Well, it’s a religion, really, you see. It’s totally unscientific.”

      That’s the money quote. I flagged it up in “tips and notes” when it was published.

      Like Eric, I was quite surprised to read this in the Guardian. What were they thinking of? Next thing they’ll be experimenting with factual reporting of climate.

      ( Na, only joking. They’d never go that far. )

      • It’s not a religion. It’s just the neo-Marxist idea to to merge environmentalism int their ideology.

      • Even the Guardian notices their falling readership and ad revenues, eventually. Greenery was always a convenient add-on du jour, and it can be added-off again if necessary. No different from many other politicians. Global warming conceit is a luxury, yet greenery is antagonistic towards human luxuries. The Guadian may be slowly walking up after ‘lovely dream’.

  4. I am less receptive to jerks who lie and ruin the lives of millions of people and then say: ” oops. Sorry about that.”

    He be contrite and apply himself to a proportionate remedy for the damage he has caused.

    Imagiane that!…

    Better yet, just STFU and go away. You’ve helped enough.

      • He has a heavy burden Eric. It may be well beyond repair by him. Besides, The Green Movement members are watermelons who don’t even know who Lovelock is. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men can’t put Lovelock together again.

      • I am with Paul. The damage is done. Unless he publicly goes as hard against the ecoloons as he went hard for them, and their movement, his comments are useless. He bears a lot of responsibility and should spend the rest of his days actively trying undo his silly mistakes.

      • Yeah, I tend to agree with Paul. I once knew a highly regarded consultant in the communications industry who’s mantra was “a good controversy just means more billable hours.” He did a lot of shoot-from-the-hip stuff regarding the web and digital platforms, then when it turned out to be all wrong he charged people even more for the remedies. I don’t think Lovelock is suffering much from all this.

      • I have a theory about messiah personalities. They are self directed and ego driven… and capricious.

        Lovelock and Moore etc…They will not confine themselves with undoing the horrendous messes they’ve created, they will create new, innovative messes and promote new initiatives, again, pushing their unrestrained egos into yet new hornets nests without regard to the normal inhibitions the rest of us possess. If you argue with them, they will alienate you JUST LIKE BEFORE. Just watch.

        eg. Moore is not just undoing his sh1tpile greenpeace, he is pushing GMOs as if there isn’t legitimate concerns about screwing around with food crops and the evolution tested human genome. Oh yeah…. that is the latest religion du jour of which you are all Luddites should you confront him.

        It isn’t the subject matter. It is the megaphone wing-ding behind it. Lovelock STILL wants celebrity (as does Moore). That is the problem. E.G.O. !!!

      • “Lovelock STILL wants celebrity (as does Moore). That is the problem. E.G.O. !!!”
        Yes Paul, it appears they are motivated by the same trappings as politicians.

      • You couldn’t prove it by the sea level rise in the latest episode of ‘Madam Secretary” destroying the Bahrain Naval Base damaged by Super Storm caused by Climate Change. As explained by Super Sleuth useful idiot Jane Pauley. Another Green Religion show I won’t be watching ever again.

      • Paul Westhaver

        I am less receptive to jerks who lie and ruin the lives of millions…

        WFT? Where did he “lie”? A scientist can change their mind. That does not mean they lied beforehand. Jeez.

        The Green Movement members are watermelons who don’t even know who Lovelock is.

        Which rather negates your own stupid claims about him. Not that I expect that you will be honest enough to admit it or show the contrition you expect from others.

      • The Whole Gaia concept was an non-scientific conjecture, presented as pseudo-science/ religion. He lied about his science. It wasn’t science , it was feeling and desire. Maybe he was a nice guy. His science was sh1t and he lied by promoting it as fact and truth.

        The whole green movement is proliferated with liars claiming “scientific truth” .

      • Carbon Bigfoot:

        Yes, i actually managed to watch that episode though I wanted to turn it off after the first few minutes. I have now watched my last “Madam Secretary”. It was getting more and more biased last season but they have just stepped over the edge. Welcome to Hillary’s World.

      • “4 Eyes October 2, 2016 at 3:32 pm”

        One could say he is the modern day equivalent of Florence Nightingale?

      • Posted: October 2, 2016 at 7:38 pm

        A scientist can change their mind. That does not mean they lied beforehand. Jeez.

        Whenever a per se “scientist” arbitrarily changes his/her mind about what he/she has been professing to be “true and factual” ….. then that is pretty much proof that the aforesaid “scientist” knew that he/she had been lying from the get-go.

        It is the recognition of actual, factual scientific evidence and/or proofs that “changes the mind” of a real scientist.

        And it doesn’t take five (5) or twenty five (25) years “after-the-fact” recognition for said “change-in-mind” to occur.

      • …precisely…from above…

        “He [should] be contrite and apply himself to a proportionate remedy for the damage he has caused.”

    • I’ve met Jim Lovelock and he is a wonderful scientist and human being. He will die soon enough and I will mourn that there are not more like him. He changed his mind on AGW based on new data and failure of predictive climate models. He shouldn’t be faulted for that.

      • People are entitled to change their minds. I agree they should not be faulted for their sincere evolution in thinking. I don’t fault him for changed mind or his right to free speech. At some point one has to assume responsibility for what they have wrought into reality. He is to blame for his errors.

      • I also have had the very great privilege of meeting Jim Lovelock and discussing matters one-on-one over lunches. Unlike uninformed comments made above, its difficult to imagine someone of such eminence who showed so little ego.

      • @ October 3, 2016 at 5:23 am

        its difficult to imagine someone of such eminence who showed so little ego.

        HA, was not the …. “discussing matters one-on-one over lunches” ….. not an “ego driven” act/trip perpetrated by Lovelock? Or are you both of “equal status” (eminence) within your respective per group(s)?

      • Jim Lovelock’s failure was that he lacked the wisdom to understand that with great potential to influence comes great responsibility.

        How many years have so many here been skeptical of AGW/human caused climate change? When did Jim Lovelock becomes skeptical and how long after that did it take him to publically voice his skepticism? I’m sorry but this whole things reminds me of a near death bed confession. I get the impression that he knew he was wrong a long time ago but only now as he can see the end is nigh has he seen fit to come forth. At least it shows he has a conscience but I also think it is self serving for him to come forth at this late date to relieve it.

  5. Cheers, Eric! Good catch. Perhaps the tide is turning as one by one, they come out on the side of sanity. Hope there’s a mass defection of fence-riders before the US election.

    • Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

      • Charles Mackay. Hadn’t seen this one before but I also like:

        Every age has its peculiar folly: Some scheme, project, or fantasy into which it plunges, spurred on by the love of gain, the necessity of excitement, or the force of imitation.

    • They will still believe, truly. …and continue the wake of ruin he started notwithstanding his “conversion”.

      Most of his true believers don’t even know who he is. They sure do know what his asinine ideas are.

      • Most of his true believers don’t even know who he is.

        You’re getting less and less coherent. How can you believe someone and not know who they are?

        BTW he didn’t start either the green movement or the idea of GHG warming. No idea why you are spitting bile and venom in his direction.

        Having someone of his renown clearly stating that he has changed his mind is going to have far more impact than you sounding off in blog comments somewhere.

        He has shown a degree of honesty that you seem incapable of.

      • The followers of the green mother earth nonsense has enjoined Lovelock’s notions as promoted by the likes of Mann, Gore, etc. In that respect, they are followers of his ideas, not knowing from where they came. Just as you shake hands with a person while you are ignorant as to who started that custom. etc etc etc You nod your head up and down when you want to show affirmation. Why? Not everyone does.

        anyway…

        Lovelock started something, for which he is responsible. He should put on adult pants and spend his last breathing days undoing his UN-Level mess.

        What is your full name Greg?

    • Well they can exhume the bones of those he burned at the stake, so people can view the damage for themselves.

      G

      • “Well they can exhume the bones of those he burned at the stake, so people can view the damage for themselves.”
        How many and a few names please. Authoritative reference required. That is a very strong claim.

    • I think the Green Blob will treat James Lovelock the same way they treated Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace who became critical of the nutty thing Greenpeace became). They will simply declare him a non-person and erase from history any connection with him.

  6. “If you want to make a little money, write a book. If you want to make a lot of money, create a religion.”

    The Green Priests took this to heart.

  7. I was relishing the recent discovery that all the smart people are over on this side of the debate.
    If the Guardian readership start to rebel and come over to this side, then prepare for skepticism to get noticeably stupider. And to involve shrieking hysteria and constant virtue signalling.

  8. Well, I have been of the belief that the thought that 400 ppm of a trace gas in the atmosphere (which just happens to absorb and emit IR energy) has any effect whatsoever on the “average temperature” is LUDICROUS.

    That may be why the “models” and the observations are, ahem, “diverging”…..

    Good to see someone recover their senses.

    Cheers, KevinK

      • A blatant act of “street-corner thuggery”, …….. huh?

        Iffen that was your best response, then pity is warranted.

  9. EPA’s Clean Power Plan and its Moment of Truth

    By Stephen Heins

    While many of us have actively tried to follow the broad-based scientific discussions about climate change including those at the Paris Meetings, most of us are stuck between to the “alarmist” and the “denier” narratives. The “luke warmers,” as we are called, suspect that the climate change discussion is far from over.

    Most troubling to some observers of the current Washington DC bureaucracies, the FCC and the EPA, is that they fit the classic mold of federal agencies furiously trying to regulate industries while they themselves are many years behind the investment, technology and innovation of the industries they regulate.

    Suffice it to say, the world’s 7.4 billion people of global economy and planetary environment are far too important to be left to silo thinking or national and global politics. This is especially true with the skyrocketing need for big data, huge wireless broadband and ongoing technological innovation, particularly in the under-developed and under-represented parts of the world.

    With that in mind, here are several flaws in the final version of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) of 2015:

    The use of several studies (e.g. Harvard’s study of indirect health benefits) are likely examples of “study-bias;”

    Medical computations of indirect health benefits from the reduction of PM 2.5 (or fine particulate matter) have never been well demonstrated;

    The CPP places complete faith in the advancement of technology responding to political dictates instead of the marketplace;

    The CPP lacks a full accounting of the costs of stranding electrical assets and the large investment in new infrastructure, which essentially just replicate old distribution assets;

    The Clean Power Plan has never been properly vetted by the states, and there never was a state or national political mandate calling for its formulation;

    Currently, a clear cut democratic majority, 28 states, have officially challenged the legality of the Clean Power Plan;

    With the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia just beginning its En Banc proceedings, President Obama and Secretary McCarthy are likely to be in the rear view mirror by the time it is fully litigated;

    Indistinguishable from any political campaign, the robust public relations campaign conducted by the EPA and the White House, and a large number of related texts and emails, are shrouded in the lack of proper disclosure not unlike the Colorado Toxic Spills;

    Actual greenhouse gas reductions from the Clean Power Plan are miniscule, and, according to Scientific America and the Energy Information Administration (EIA), by 2015, 47 states had already achieved sharp decreases in emission from 2007 levels, with more than billion tons of reductions;

    The US is already on a glide path whereby America has reduced more Green House Gas (GHG) than any other country in the world, a fact which even the Sierra Club acknowledges;

    The EPA has never provided a real cost benefit analysis of the Clean Power throughout all versions of the regulations;

    The CPP gives the EPA and state environmental agencies first class status, making all other state and federal agencies (like the Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory Committee, and State Utility Regulators) virtual second class citizens, with second class powers;

    With “cross state” and regional emission differences, the CPP makes states and regions compete against each other in energy markets previously regulated by states, and is de facto helping to create a national emissions market, which has already been defeated legislatively;

    The Clean Power Plan is fraught with backward looking and silo thinking, with no heed paid to the rapidly expanding convergence of energy, technology and wireless telecommunications. In the case of the above convergence, there is no consideration for the rapidly expanding need for electricity, big data and wireless broadband to allow significantly more energy efficiency, better environmentalism and economic development in all 50 states;

    The CPP has a serious lack of transparency, whereby much of the information remains undisclosed. Much of the grant money provided by the EPA for health and emissions studies (Harvard, Syracuse, George Mason, Johns Hopkins et al) is essentially undeclared;

    The significant input provided by large environmental groups like the Sierra Club and the NRDC is largely buried in the footnotes or hidden in private emails;

    Finally, as Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard and the Wall Street Journal point out, the constitutionality of Clean Power Plan and its new found powers violate the separation of powers and the long standing principle of cooperative federalism between the states and the federal government.

    Stephen Heins
    Energy Consultant, Business Writer and Practical Environmentalist
    “Proactive, precise, published”
    The Word Merchant, LLC
    Suite 3
    530 Wilson Avenue
    Sheboygan, WI 53081
    920-918-8098 (I Phone)
    920-395-2854
    stephen@twmheins.com

  10. Better late than never. I hope he lives long enough to write out the 7 billion checks and aplogy notes.

  11. Lovelock just added a new, generalized twist to nature worship, which has been going on forever.

    • Does the fact that it has been “going on forever” make it of more or less value than other forms of worship that have only been going on for a couple of millennia?

      Like most of the other ignorant comments here yours fails to recognise that Lovelock was not proposing Gaia as a deity, neither was he involved in nature worship, it was a scientific hypothesis.

      • Greg,

        What is your real name?

        Here is a NOVA video featuring Lovelock absolutely saying that the Gaia idea has metaphysical elements, and he knew it. Time Stamp 30:20.

        NOVA Goddess of the Earth

      • Sorry, Paul W, but the above Greg …….. absolutely, positively REFUSES to research, entertain, consider or believe ANYTHING that is contrary to what his beloved mentors “brainwashed” (nurtured) him to believe is “true and factual”. And iffen you question or critique any part of his commentary he will not cite evidence to support said nor offer logical reasoning for his beliefs …… but will post haste launch a personal attack against your person.

        Cheers

      • “Here is a NOVA video featuring Lovelock absolutely saying that the Gaia idea has metaphysical elements, and he knew it.”

        Actually, in the clip Paul references, he says pretty much the opposite. The religious interpretations came from others.

      • “featuring Lovelock absolutely saying that the Gaia idea has metaphysical elements, and he knew it.”

        Mathematics and logic are metaphysical. Science would be bereft without them.

    • Hardly nature worship, more an extension of Darwin’s theory. Life, the atmosphere and lithosphere have been so inextricably linked for such a long period it wouldn’t surprise me that the biosphere evolved by natural selection to be a self regulating system.

    • “Lovelock just added a new, generalized twist to nature worship, which has been going on forever.”

      Here’s an example of Lovelock’s “nature worship”:

      http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~sgw/PAPERS/1987_CLAW.pdf

      Perhaps you can quote from this, or one of Lovelock’s many other papers to demonstrate his “nature worship”. Presumably the geologist who introduced me to the concepts in this paper is also a “nature worshipper”. Heck, I must be a “nature worshipper” too. Whoda thunkit?

  12. Another warmist ‘warms’ to skepticism. Funny how somehow skeptics are never persuaded to accept warmism.

    • Yes, it is encouraging, considering the media indoctrination, that folks seem to be switching from uninformed believers to enlightened skeptics, concerned for their liberties.

    • VOTE TRUMP!

      (That IS Donald Trump, isn’t it? — Time for a different and INTELLIGENT economic and energy and national security policy! :) )

      • AJB: Perhaps, it was ….. a poem….. (about Big Government which is what you will get if you do not vote for Trump!)

        lolololol

        (Shel Silverstein “The Toy Eater,” Falling Up — youtube)

      • Let me rephrase…
        We’ve had decades of “The Grapes Of Wrath” predictions where “Gaia” is concerned. However, things have pretty much been peachy, with food production ample. Actually, the only thing keeping the entire globe from being in cherry shape is affordable electricity to the developing countries.

      • ((applause)), Pop! :)

        Now, if we can just get rid of the nuts in D.C. who are driving us bananas!

      • Pop: Berry funny.

        Janice: Tricky Dick’s plumbers had NUTHIN’ on Crooked Hill’s Blackberry smashers.

        Pop: Rotten watermelons. Vote ’em out!

        Janice: SQUASH ‘EM!

      • There is no fruit (the crooked fig leaf flapping around doesn’t count). Being a Brit, I have no vote. But whatever the outcome of this surreal spectacle, it’ll bite us all on the bum in the end: Governments everywhere are way too big already. Less is more, more or less. :-)

    • ((applause)), Pop! :)

      Now, if we can just get rid of the nuts in D.C. who are driving us bananas!

  13. He should admit and explain that “Gaia” was just a stand-in concept for the unknown forces and feedbacks that have kept the Earth’s biosphere tolerable for me and my ancestors for the past 4 billion years. It was an expression of ignorance even if he couldn’t see it. The same ignorance that sees the apocalypse in a CO2 level that is a fraction of what is was in very livable past times.

    • “He should admit and explain that “Gaia” was just a stand-in concept for the unknown forces and feedbacks that have kept the Earth’s biosphere tolerable for me and my ancestors for the past 4 billion years. It was an expression of ignorance even if he couldn’t see it.”
      Perhaps you should read what he wrote rather than parroting what others have claimed he said.
      BTW I’m rather proud of my ignorance. It’s an acknowledgement that I don’t know everything.

  14. “I’ve grown up a bit since then.”

    That’s says it all. Unfortunately it was a very long adolescence.

  15. James Lovelock of course also played a critical role in the ozone depletion hypothesis that led to the Montreal Protocol and a worldwide ban on CFCs and other halogenated hydrocarbons. Lovelock’s only role was purely objective and scientific. Because halogenated hycrocarbons were chemically inert and because they did not otherwise occur in nature he wondered if their release into the atmosphere even in minute quantities would cause an accumulation that could have environmental implications. The testable implication of this hypothesis is that air samples far from human habitation should contain measurable amounts of this unnatural substance. So he sailed to the middle of the North Atlantic and took air samples far from human habitation and therein he did find measurable amounts of halogenated hydrocarbons. QED. He published these findings a now famous paper (Lovelock, J. (1973). Halogenated hydrocarbons in and over the Atlantic. Nature , 241. 194-196).

    It so happened that 1973 was a time of intense ozone layer environmentalism. It was a movement to “save the ozone layer” and thereby to save us from skin cancer and cataract epidemics and all life on the surface of the earth including marine life from the hideously harmful effects of UVB radiation. See:
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291833573_ozonePaperResource

    And so the hunt was on almost immediately after the Lovelock paper to see if a “dangerous accumulation” of these synthetic chemicals could end up in the stratosphere and harm the ozone layer. Within a year a credible theory of ozone destruction was proposed by Mario Molina and the late Frank Rowland of UC Irvine (Molina-Rowland. (1974). Atmospheric sink for chlorofluoromethane: chlorine atom catalyzed destruction of ozone. Nature, 249(5460) 810-812.). Environmentally conscious scientists began looking for evidence of ozone depletion that could be described in terms of the Rowland-Molina theory of ozone destruction (RMTOD). In 1985, the British Antarctic expedition at Halley Bay near the South Pole produced data that was widely accepted as empirical evidence of the RMTOD. It was in the form of a steep decline in total column ozone (TCO) during the months of October and November between 1973 and 1984 measured at Halley Bay. The decline came to be called the ozone hole. Maurice Strong and the UNEP seized this opportunity, declared a global environmental crisis, convened the Montreal Protocol, and set in motion the latest incarnation of the fear of anthropogenic ozone depletion.

    However, the ozone hole is a localized event that contains both seasonal and decadal cycles. It has more credible explanations in terms of ozone distribution rather than in terms of ozone destruction. The ozone hole is not a testable implication of RMTOD. The more rational testable implication is a dangerous and sustained decline in mean global TCO. The absence such evidence is the likely reason for an extreme focus in the South Pole, an area known for its anomalous behavior in a planetary context.
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2843032
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2748016

    • “So he sailed to the middle of the North Atlantic and took air samples far from human habitation and therein he did find measurable amounts of halogenated hydrocarbons. ”

      IIRC he also invented the apparatus to detect them… in his own workshop under his own funding. A very capable chap.

    • Lovelock said in 1988 that he was dubious about CFC threat to the ozone layer because of the possibility of a volcanic eruption. Im not sure if I can post pictures here to prove it.

    • “Gaia is not an hypothesis it is unmitigated mystical rubbish.”
      So the concept that the biosphere consists of a myriad interlocking feedback systems to achieve a quasi-stable overall system is “unmitigated mystical rubbish”. Whoda thunkit?

  16. The Gaia hypothesis explains why human technological civilization has arisen when it has, to free the sequestered carbon from geological strata of previous eras, and prevent a snowball Earth devoid of life.

  17. If people like lovelock had acted like real scientists instead of bought and paid for puppets how many lives would not have between lost . Tens of thousands per year . Live with that Lovelock . No doubt they wouldn’t have seen the joke but you are .
    A religion he says . Really …who knew ? And who started the religion ? White coats disguised as scientists .
    The rot in climate science started early .

    .

  18. Robots!?! So robots will take over all the jobs that cause “heat related” stress???
    So robots will do all the “daily cleaning” and “manual jobs”?
    What’s he going to power them with? Pixie dust?

  19. “To store and process the amount of information required to implement Lady Gaia would require an entity bigger than the universe.”
    I’m not at all sure why that should be so. Is there really a relation betwixt extension and information? If there is I have certainly not come across it.

    • “The Gaia hypothesis, also known as Gaia theory or Gaia principle, proposes that organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a synergistic self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet.”
      Yep! Seems a lot of people around here believe living organisms never interact with their surroundings, so they can’t maintain or perpetuate the conditions for life on Earth. Wowsers! So it all happened because some dude with a long grey beard in the sky causes life? Presumably for only the last 6,000 years, not the 3.8 billion or so that Lovelock believes.
      Remind me again, who’s promoting “religious faith and dogma here”.

      • “Gaia is a religious as well as a scientific concept. I cannot help but think that these country folk are worshipping something more than the Christian maiden” [referring to Irish shrines]

        — James Lovelock, Jan 14th 1989, Irish Times

      • Quoting Einstein: “The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical. It is the power of all true art and science.
        He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead.
        To know that what is inpenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and
        the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—
        this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness.”
        I could equally have quoted Sir Isaac Newton. I do not allow religious belief interfere with my appreciation of scientific laws and theories as you seem to Fabo.
        Note: Jonathan Sturm is of course The Pompous Git’s alter ego. I was away from my home computer yesterday.

  20. The Guardian is trying to spin the story by inferring Dr. Lovelock is a lunatic, who believes humans will either perish under the reign of AI machines or by Climate Change, so humanity is doomed by 2100 regardless…

    I agree with Dr. Lovelock that thorium reactors will eventually replace oil, natural gas and coal as our major source of energy and synthesized hydrocarbons, however, I don’t know why Dr. Lovelock believes there are only 200 years of thorium reserves available…

    Most estimates project there are 10’s of thousands years of thorium reserves, as it is as common as lead, and it only takes 1.5 grams of thorium to produce all one’s energy needs for a year (transportation, electricity, heating, AC, etc.).

    Over the next 100 years (who knows), we’ll likely learn how to make fusion work, so there is little need to worry about future energy needs. We have 10’s of thousands of years of thorium reserves to figure out what the next energy source will be…

    I like the Cajun philosophy of life, “Ya neva know”….

  21. “Let’s see … I think uranium that is affordable to extract would last about 50 years, something in that range. It might be 100. When you’ve used all that up, you go to thorium, and that would last you three times as long as uranium – so, shall we say, about 200 years?”

    The same error the “Peak Oil” crowd makes, assuming that “is affordable to extract” is fixed, and not susceptible to improvement. Sometimes radical improvement. The energy return on uranium is so great that you come out ahead extracting it from rocks. And there are traces of it in coal ash and tailings. And sea water.

    I wonder if he was counting on reprocessing “spent nuclear fuel”, because the first pass only extracts 5% of the energy, the fuel only has to be removed because of the buildup of decay products that absorb neutrons without contributing energy. Reprocessing increases your fuel supply by 20 fold.

    And that doesn’t begin to address the potential of mining asteroids, which, among many other things, will have uranium and thorium.

  22. He has merely switched to a different catastrophe: robots instead of Warming. Why do some people enjoy imaginary disasters

      • Please provide examples of some people who “enjoy classing all dangers as being imaginary.”

        Or perhaps you used the wrong word? Maybe it should be stated as “enjoy classing imaginary dangers as being imaginary.”

  23. Another quote from the Guardian interview.

    But I’m afraid, human nature being what it is, the thing gets exaggerated out of all proportion, and the greens have behaved deplorably instead of being reasonably sensible.”

  24. This isn’t the first time Dr. Lovelock has been interviewed by the Guardian newspaper on the subject of global warming. There was a column in the Toronto Sun newspaper (columnist Lorrie Goldstein) on April 29, 2012 that detailed Lovelock’s interview with the Guardian during the week of April 22, 2012 (Goldstein doesn’t give an exact date). Goldstein refers to Dr. Lovelock in his article as the “Godfather of Global Warming”.
    Goldstein wrote that Lovelock still believed human emitted CO2 was having SOME effect on the climate, but that the main cause of global warming was natural. Lovelock also said the best way to lower CO2 emissions was through Nuclear and Natural Gas. He referred to Wind Turbines and Solar Panels as “Useless” and that Sustainable Development was “Meaningless Drivel”. Lovelock changed his mind on global warming due to the lack of warming after 1998 (the so-called “Pause”), combined with the continued increase of atmospheric CO2 levels.

    • 3cworth Wind Turbines generate infrasound, which carries for miles. Only people who have read about Nikolai Tesla and his work on vibration will perhaps realize what a potential for damage that implies. Solar I am still somewhat optimistic about, but storage is still the big hurdle to jump. Thorium, however, sounds as if it was discarded because it had no applications in weaponry ! The Ergosphere on Blogspot has some interesting thoughts on Thorium Salt Reactors.

  25. So I think he owes the “skeptics” something. But what? Maybe a post on here – on the truth website for “global warming”, “climate change”. Probably no apology, but maybe just a clarifying post here.
    Good luck to see that…I am sure that he is aware of this website WUWT. If not, he is no scientist now.

  26. I read another review of Lovelock’s article elsewhere (I admit to extreme prejudice against reading the Guardian itself: I have a heart condition and I dont take risks with elevated blood pressure). When he claims that there is only at most a couple of hundred years of fissile material for nuclear power I gave up.

    So a senile old gent has finally reviewed some assumptions and found them a little flawed, but hasn’t reviewed the rest and is probably too old to actually make the journey to fully understand them now, anyway.

    No, what is significant is that bastion of virtue signalling, right-on Leftism, is actually printing this piece. I can only assume we are seeing the early booster rockets fire as they attempt to bring the green rocket in for a soft landing.

    And they have decided that the current fiction is – in the modern parlance – unsustainable.

    I have to admit I read WUWT not to glean further evidence of whether or not climate change is substantially anthropogenic these days, because I think the overwhelming balance of such real evidence as is available – as opposed to the plethora of models based on unproved assumption, refutes those models beyond reasonable doubt.

    No, the real news is human news, what changes and adjustments are being made to the vast engines of the media, in order to construct yet another common world-view that can capture the imagination of the great unwashed, and pervert it towards whatever political social and economic future those who have access to it, have dreamed up as desirable.

    Personally, with a view in many different pots, I am perhaps as much perturbed by the failure of this system, which has more or less run the Western world since the inception of the Cold War, showing the signs of its abject failure, as I am by the knowledge that for the last 60 years at least, we have been gulled and swindled by a media and government increasingly supported by and owing allegiance to deep corporate financial interests.

    The world is waking up to the facts that their so called and would-be leaders who claim authority and respect on the basis of being part of and educated for an elite, that actually knows better, are in reality incompetent posturing fools, for hire to anyone with the cash to bribe them.

    Perhaps they always have been, and its merely the Internet that has allowed us to assemble a group world view that for the first time is not dominated by what they wish us to believe, but by what we jointly have arrived at through discussion.

    And perhaps the most salient feature of this new emerging world view, epitomised by Climate Change, is that is set to call into question the very assumptions on which the modern political state justifies itself: Namely that We (They) Can Do Something To FIx The World.

    Is this in fact the nemesis of global politics? Having first of all identified ‘global problems’ like disease, poverty, and latterly Climate Change, and justified the development of some kind of pan national political structures – the EU, the UN – these structures have become subverted into the exercise of global profiteering instead, and have addressed pseudo problems as a means of exercising political control for profit, rather than for problem solving?

    The rise of the hard Left, whose message has always been ‘smash the corporate capitalists’. with however no clear idea what to replace its function with, seems to suggest a massive disillusions with politics and politicians, except of course those who claim to be of that persuasion, and here in the UK we see the second coming of JC – Jeremy Corbyn – hailed as the One True Prophet of the New Socialist Age.

    Whilst more adult and considered perspectives are rapidly coming to the understanding that politicians are a necessary evil, and what counts is less to find an honest competent one, and more how to ensure that a dishonest incompetent one does what the people want. And the tacit acceptance that in reality, that doesn’t amount to very much.

    That is, this post and its message are worth considering in the light of a proposition, that what is actually happening, globally, is a massive and vast disillusionment with at least the politics and fantasises of the Western world, towards a new understanding that Politics can’t solve nearly as many problems as it claims to.

    Whilst the US hopeful still fantasise that a clown with bad hair, or a harridan with hair set in concrete, can actually be the new One True Saviour, and the UK hopeful still applaud the Second Coming of JC, the more discerning are beginning to understand that, after all, the real lesson of these electoral processes is that, by and large, politicians are ignorant, incompetent, clowns and liars, and the real point is to fix the system to limit the amount of damage they can do.

    And sack them regularly ‘pour encourager les autres’

    Climate change is in fact a perfect microcosm of this change in global western consciousness. On the one hand we have the ‘anthropics’ – those who, through the lens of Marxism, declare that all that is wrong with the world is down to man’s inhumanity to man, (or latterly to Nature), and the remedy is strong centralised world government populated by people who by virtue of having arrived at the very pinnacle of global power, suddenly acquire the ability to channel the energy of sunlight through their anuses, versus what we may call the ‘Chaotics’ who understand that civilisation and humanity itself may only be an emergent property of the froth that exists on the surface of the vast chaotic system that is represented by the term ‘ecosphere’ and that the best strategy towards survival is to accept and acknowledge this, and develop small quasi autonomous units of political control that, in an emergency, can react to changes in the world rapidly and efficiently, and share knowledge of their successes and failures with their peers.

    That is, whilst global communications and global trade are positive contributors to the survival of the species, global government – at least of the sort on offer – is not.

    Climate change legislation is absolutely predicated on the faux assumptions that there exists a global problem that is soluble by human intervention, and that strong centralised political legislation is the way to solve it.

    Both of those assumptions are increasingly being challenged, in almost every sphere of political activity, not just climate change.

    Marxism at is most fundamental level asserts those assumptions. Socialism draws its justification from them.
    Pragmatic libertarianism denies them.

    And that is why Donald Trump, and Nigel Farage arouse so much ire. Because at a subliminal level they challenge the very orthodoxy on which left/liberal political and social thought is based, that the most important instrument of progress towards ‘social justice’ is the political power of elected governments.

    Leaving aside whether such a nebulous concept as ‘social justice’ is, like ‘no climate change at all’ either attainable or desirable, we have to call into question the mechanisms by which it is to be achieved, relying on political candidates whose intellectual judgement and dedication to public service must be as infallible as he who doesn’t shit in the woods.

    The point about Nigel and Donald, is not that they appear to be incompetent buffoons, but that they at some level readily acknowledge that that is their intention, to parody the very political process. When Trump claims that the simple answer to Hispanic immigration is to build a wall across the Mexican border, he is being precisely as lunatic as Hillary Clinton who says that to prevent a far more nebulous issue – climate change, we must build windmills and solar panels everywhere. Well in fact he is being less lunatic, as immigration is a definite tangible issue, and a wall might actually make some difference.

    NIgel and Trump are the little boys saying ‘look at the Emperor, he’s got no clothes…’

    The real question is, how mature is the electorate? Are they ready to admit that, by and large, 90% of politics is probably a waste of time? And the other 10% absolutely is? And thereby vote for small pragmatic and limited governments that do not seek to change fundamental human nature, but merely progress in the the small matters in which they are competent?

    Time will tell. One of the features of the human condition is that there is one born every minute. And older wiser and more cynical men will always exploit that..”The future belongs to the young, they should have more say”.

    Yeah, right.

    • “NIgel and Trump are the little boys saying ‘look at the Emperor, he’s got no clothes…’”

      I’ve said that Trump has already done a service in planting a boot to the posterior of the Uniparty. If winning the election, I hope he attracts a good cabinet.

    • Great commentary Leo
      there is one born every minute
      There are three babies born every second, so if only the one per minute was gullible and muddleheaded, that would be only one in 200 people and not such a problem.
      Its more like “there’s one born every second”.

    • Yes, I see you understand. At some point the mechanic, seeing that no further adjustment will cause the machine to produce the desired results, reaches for his hammer and applies the final and decisive “adjustment” and walks away to have lunch.

  27. No open thread this weekend, but after hurricane Mathew passes Cuba and it’s mountains, and the Bahamas, I think it will be a category 2 hurricane. Who knows from there. I think it will head out to the Atlantic rather than hit the Carolina’s directly. Let’s hope…any thoughts?

  28. – Sitting in the dark in your living room for a few days can be carthartic.
    – Throwing out all the food in your warm refridge and freezer because the power has been off for two days might be carthatic.

    The Climate Change movement is past its peak and is now in desparation mode. But desparate wounded animals can still be very dangerous. The Climate Change hustle needs a clean kill head shot, which Gaia undoubtedly has coming sooner rather than later.

  29. Lovelock now believes that “CO2 is going up, but nowhere near as fast as they thought it would.

    I do not fully understand this comment. Manmade emissions of CO2 have been business as usual. Manmade emissions have not slowed or fallen below what was originally predicted/projected when the scare took force in the 1980s.

    Perhaps, he is inferring that the carbon cycle was not well understood, and it was not appreciated that carbon sinks would take up about 50% of Manmade emissions. Thus although Manmade emissions are at least what was originally contemplated, atmospheric levels of CO2 are rising/have risen less than one may expect given the volume of Manmade CO2 emissions.

    I agree with others that he needs to do more to tell the world of his revised views and grown up thinking.

    • Thus although Manmade emissions are at least what was originally contemplated, atmospheric levels of CO2 are rising/have risen less than one may expect given the volume of Manmade CO2 emissions.

      “SURPRISE, SURPRISE”, …… of course the atmospheric levels of CO2 have not risen/are not rising at the rate that was originally contemplated due to the exponential increase in/of human CO2 emissions …….. simply because there is not, and never was, …… a human “signature” to be found anywhere with the daily, weekly, monthly, bi-yearly, yearly or decadal measurements in/of atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities.

  30. “Gaia” as a term has been misunderstood and misused as a label for all things green and irrational.
    But it refers in fact to the specific and normal scientific hypothesis of Lovelock, that a planet’s biota regulate the planet’s climate to their own collective advantage (the word “collective” will raise hackles in the political part of some folk’s brains, but there it is). This hypothesis is nicely stated in the Daisyworld simulation (a world with just black and white daisies and a sun with changing output):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisyworld

    This hypothesis is a serious one largely accepted by ecologists.

    The emission of significant amounts of fossil carbon as CO2 by burning is almost as straightforward an example of the Gaia hypothesis as the changing ratio of black and white daisies on Daisyworld. Long term silicate weathering from tectonic turnover slowly depletes CO2 in the atmosphere toward life-threateningly low levels. The biosphere evolves a species which finds a way to return that carbon to the atmosphere. The important thing is that they do this without the explicit thought of fulfilling a Gaia imperative, it is done by what drives all biological evolution – by pure self interest. But when the hominids involved start trying to intellectualise the process they get it wrong and fall in to the belief that CO2 in the air is harmful.

    Doing what comes naturally we fulfil the Gaia mechanism and preserve the earth’s ecosystem as optimally supporting of life. But inserting pseudo-intellectual environmentalism is toxic to the operation of the Gaia mechanism and derails its nurturing and protecting operation.

    • Actually its relative BS. What actually happens is that organisms evolve that are suited to the conditions and change those conditions by their existence – think what plants did to atmospheric CO2 – and other life forms evolve to suit the new conditions – oxygen rich? fancy 5 ft wingspan butterflies?

      The problem with Gaia is the hidden assumption that there is a correct state of the ecosphere.

      WE are just another organism that has evolved to capitalise on a niche environment – fossil fuels and are busy turning the clock back to where it was before the plants turned all the CO2 into coal gas and oil…

      Which is fine for us and great for plants.

      • Leo
        There is more to Lovelock’s Gaia than just “organisms adapt”. Yes they adapt, but the Gaia mechanism is an emergent consequence of adaptive reponses of more than one organism with the result that the combined responses alter the environment in the favour of all the organisms. It is actually a complex high order of emergent self-regulation in a nonlinear pattern formation system.
        Think again about the simple daisyworld model. Black and white daisies separately respond to changing sunlight in Daisyworld. The relative response of both alters the earth’s albedo thus keeping temeratures favourable for both. But the individual species – black and white daisies, are simply responding in their own interest by natural selection.

      • “The problem with Gaia is the hidden assumption that there is a correct state of the ecosphere.”
        Citation required.

  31. ” …now thinks global warming is a religion.” This is wrong. He says the green movement is a religion. The green movement and global warming are not the same.

  32. Isn’t it time for a Nova episode or a whole season actually, to document the “explored new ideas” that were wrong or naive and misleading to science and the public?

  33. Just for the record, James Lovelock has been a prominent critic of wind power and similar ineffective “emissions reduction” measures beloved by the green movement for many years. He has never to my knowledge endorsed them – on the contrary, his support has long been welcomed by those of us involved in pertinent campaigns.

    He was all-but sidelined by the “green” mainstream for his pains. Wherever the blame for the environmental and social mayhem caused by the “renewables” and other AGW-related industries may lie, it cannnot reasonably be laid at his door. Thirty seconds on Google shows that some of the above comments are almost as ill-informed as they are loutish.

  34. Lovelock is responsible for destroying the lives and environments of rural communities in Ireland UK and elsewhere leaving them financially ruined in some cases trying to fight wind farms. Does he realize how many lives he has ruined ?

    If he truly repents now he needs to come out and call a stop to the whole thing.

    • “Lovelock is responsible for destroying the lives and environments of rural communities in Ireland UK and elsewhere leaving them financially ruined in some cases trying to fight wind farms. Does he realize how many lives he has ruined ?”
      Citation required. Why do you think your assertions can just be taken for granted?

  35. “Lovelock is responsible for destroying the lives and environments of rural communities in Ireland UK and elsewhere leaving them financially ruined in some cases trying to fight wind farms.”

    Lovelock and his daughter have both for many years been outspoken critics of wind farms and supporters of those campaigning against them. If it’s not too much trouble, try putting “Lovelock + wind power” into a search engine, reading some of what it finds and coming back here to correct your misinformation. I disagree with many of Lovelock’s views but his take on wind power is as correct as it has been consistent.

    • If you care to read the planning reports in Ireland and UK, you will see that climate change is the ultimate justification for wind farms.

      • “If you care to read the planning reports in Ireland and UK, you will see that climate change is the ultimate justification for wind farms.”

        When, some years back, I was researching the environmental impact of wind power, I read a deal more planning reports, EIAs, policy documents etc etc than I cared to wrt projects in Ireland and the UK both. I even wrote, inter alia, a paper on and produced a short film of the notorious Derrybrien site near Galway.

        Unsurprisingly, I’m therefore aware of wind power’s purported justification but I’m equally aware of the need to check facts before commenting in a public forum. Whatever Lovelock may or may not be responsible for, he’s not to blame for the spread of wind power. Historically, that responsibility lies in large measure with the wider “environmental” movement that lobbied on behalf of the industry and with the politicians who promoted the AGW hypothesis. Lovelock has consistently argued against wind power. On your logic, Sir Humphry Davy is to blame for mustard gas.

    • Sir H.Davey was an inventor. Lovelock created a religion. Adherents to a religion can justify any action under the banner of Gaia. I was once told by one greenie that there will have to be trade offs i.e. you can damage one part of the environment in order to save the planet.

      • “I was once told by one greenie that there will have to be trade offs i.e. you can damage one part of the environment in order to save the planet.”

        And I think that’s as authoritative as Fabo can manage. Don’t give up your day job Fabo. I suspect you will never manage to be scientific or rational.

  36. He seems to have a penchant for saying both things which are eminently sensible, along with things that are cuckoo, like “The most sensible energy solution would be to cover 100 sq miles of the Sahara in solar panels.“
    But the important thing is that he has turned against the greenies, which should make them hopping mad.
    Any day the greenines are hopping mad about something is a good day.

    • “Any day the greenines are hopping mad about something is a good day.”

      Might even be Good for the Planet if we can harness the energy of them hopping :-)

  37. I just don’t think there is anything great about someone that, at age 95 or so, finally discovers a new way of thinking. Most people, at least from my own observations, are able to drop the rosy-colored glasses and switch from heart-felt belief systems to empirical thinking around age 30. He could not have been that ignorant of the world around him for that length of time unless he was just too enamored with his own renown.

  38. I met James Lovelock at a lecture he gave down here a few years back… He said then that his biggest worry was that not only are we applying a significant forcing to the homeostatic system he calls Gaia, but we are systematically destroying the mechanisms of homeostasis themselves, through deforestation, soil loss and marine pollution, which would normally correct it. That seemed – and still seems – to me to be a much bigger issue, and I don’t understand why he thinks that has gone away.

    But maybe (as in the second half of the interview) he thinks the whole thing is trumped (ahem) by the existential threat of AI Singularity, so it’s all irrelevant. To which one might add the parallel (and related) threat of nuclear annihilation… I wish I could manage his cheerful insouciance.

  39. James Lovelock, 2006: “…and 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.”

    http://www.jameslovelock.org/page10.html

    Now being wrong about one thing doesn’t mean you’re wrong about all things, and people can indeed grow out of stupidity, but I would still take with a grain of salt anything said by someone who was so gullible (or dishonest) in the past about such monumentally wrong ideas.

  40. “I’ve grown up a bit since then.”

    Unfortunately, we don’t really have time to wait for all the other zealots to ‘grow out of it’. Because all the true believers are hard at work destroying our economy, energy, security, liberty, and sovereignty.

  41. Yes Lovelock the robots will take over the world by the end of the century. James Cameron predicted that in 1984. Hasta la vista baby!

  42. Since childhood, I thought that there is no way to discount the earth being an intelligent entity, any more than one cell in your body (if it could ‘think’) could discount the existence of an entity as complex as you.

    I have still never heard a convincing argument against this.

  43. Greg writes: “Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis was nothing to do with a deity or religion, it was a scientific hypothesis that the biosphere could be regarded as a large complex super organism, in a similar way to regarding and ant colony as one organism rather than thousands of ants.

    That is a perfectly valid idea.”

    Indeed, it is even a demonstrably correct idea, even at the most basic level of the composition of the earth’s atmosphere, which only allows animals to survive because plants first colonized the biosphere utilizing Co2 and producing Oxygen. Life is not a zero sum struggle for survival. Commensualism and symbiosis are essential and integral aspects of evolution. If you climb up a large and old Redwood, you will find whole micro-ecosystems sustained in the canopy — insects, plants, bacteria, all thriving with the Redwood without harming it. In a similar manner, human life is impossible without the synergism of friendly bacteria that inhabit our bodies and assist in digestion and metabolism.

    The “Robinson Caruso” mentality of many rugged individualism, which believes that life is always and only about zero sum competition, is endangering the health and safety of the planet. Lovelock is a brilliant and honest scientist and should be celebrated for publicly modifying his previous opinions about global warming.

Comments are closed.