Green 'Drivel': Godfather of Global Warming Speaks.

[RodSBT]

Interesting comments from the man who started it all.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel

"..Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.
Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect..."


(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”

[Flying Orca]

Interesting comments from the man who started it all.

1) Lovelock isn't the man who started it all; the closest you'd get to one person in that case would likely be Svante Arrhenius.

2) Lovelock has always been a bit of an outsider with somewhat kooky (OK, let's be kind and say "non-mainstream") theories that are not accepted by the majority of his peers.

3) Lovelock's pronouncements on climate change have likewise reflected his personal opinion, not the findings of the IPCC or what is generally referred to as the consensus view on climate change.

4) If you read his original comments, you will know that he is questioning only the timing of climate change, not the effect itself.

5) While he is technically correct on the "settledness" of the science, his point is trite and inconsequential. The science is as settled as that of evolution, a round earth, or gravity, and sane people generally base their lives and predictions on the orthodox view of such things rather than the tiny group who claim that such theories are incorrect.

[shamus]

Yep, Lovelock's a nut.
Anyone who recants is a nut.
The truth is known to a flying whale.
Hold the line.

[Peerie Maa]

For those who want it, the original interview is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...greens-climate

[Gerarddm]

I have never understood the intense opposition to the concept of human-caused global warming. If the Al Gores of the world are right, they are tremendously right; if they are wrong, all we get is a cleaner, saner world, omigosh, the horror, the horror.

Works for me.

[ccmanuals]

So that's the guy that started global warming. Knew it had to be someone.

[Flying Orca]

Yep, Lovelock's a nut.

No, he's a guy with theories that have not found mainstream acceptance. There's a difference, and you don't do your point of view any good by falsely representing another.

Anyone who recants is a nut.

This is not religion; there is nothing to "recant". Lovelock has backed away from his earlier extremist statements, which were never endorsed as part of the consensus view, as to the timing of climate change. That's it, that's all.

The truth is known to a flying whale.

Hardly. The truth is revealed by the scientific method, and will forever be incomplete and probabilistic. Nonetheless, there is a consensus endorsed by every major scientific body in the world, supported by a huge body of evidence; new supporting evidence is uncovered every day, and far from contradicting the IPCC's earlier predictions, it usually indicates that they were too conservative.

[ljb5]

[B](4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”

This is one of the things I find so sad about the anti-science crowd.

Scientist look at a powerful, well-established, self-consistent theory and think, "How can I fill in all the unkown parts?" Anti-scientist look at it and say, "How can I tear this apart?"

That's not just bad science. It's a sad way of looking at things. It's driven, not by the craving of knowledge, but by fear of it.

Gravity is just a theory. It has many unknowns and uncertainty. But you're not going to disprove it. Feel free to try.

[Flying Orca]

The other really sad thing, IMNSHO, is that anti-science is no longer just the realm of the proudly ignorant few. Now that anti-science has the financial backing of big business and the support of many on the political right, otherwise intelligent and well-informed people express shockingly ignorant opinions. I have believed in the progressive betterment of humankind all my life, but I confess that concerted attacks on science and what seems to be an increase in wilful ignorance give me pause.

[Peerie Maa]

The other really sad thing, IMNSHO, is that anti-science is no longer just the realm of the proudly ignorant few. Now that anti-science has the financial backing of big business and the support of many on the political right, otherwise intelligent and well-informed people express shockingly ignorant opinions. I have believed in the progressive betterment of humankind all my life, but I confess that concerted attacks on science and what seems to be an increase in wilful ignorance give me pause.

Was not that always so in the US? Remember the misinformation put out by big tobacco?

[Flying Orca]

Was not that always so in the US? Remember the misinformation put out by big tobacco?

That's where they honed their craft, certainly. In fact, one of the most vocal shills, Dr Fred Singer, was involved in both anti-science efforts.

But that's a relatively new thing - last fifty years, say. Before that, the average educated person had some understanding of science, and more importantly, valued it. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

[Peerie Maa]

That's where they honed their craft, certainly. In fact, one of the most vocal shills, Dr Fred Singer, was involved in both anti-science efforts.

But that's a relatively new thing - last fifty years, say. Before that, the average educated person had some understanding of science, and more importantly, valued it. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

Of course. It was only in the early '50s that they established the link between tobacco and fatal diseases.

[LeeG]

I have never understood the intense opposition to the concept of human-caused global warming.

Narrative reinforcement.

[Flying Orca]

Of course. It was only in the early '50s that they established the link between tobacco and fatal diseases.

Well, I think it was suspected before that, but yes... and not coincidentally, propaganda (or advertising, same thing) was becoming something of a science itself at around the same time. For the first time, big business had both the means and the motive to subvert science.

[L.W. Baxter]

Lovelock was a crackpot then and he is a crackpot now.

[Chip-skiff]

Lovelock was a crackpot then and he is a crackpot now.

And your informed opinion means oh-so-much to me.

[2MeterTroll]

Really i found him refreshing and more than a little fun to hang with as a kid.

as usual its a farmer.

Lovelock was a crackpot then and he is a crackpot now.

[L.W. Baxter]

And your informed opinion means oh-so-much to me.

I knew that if I just kept being my handsome, erudite self, you would eventually come around!

In all seriousness, I enjoy the occasional argument over subjects in which I may or may not be well-informed, but I don't actually want an internet enemy to exchange personal insults with. It seems like that is the sum total of our relationship at this point, so I will avoid addressing you or quoting your posts if you do the same.

Also, I apologize for calling Lovelock a crackpot. That was unnecessary.