Watts Up With That?

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…

View original post 282 more words

Advertisements

About Russ Steele
Freelance writer and climate change blogger. Russ spent twenty years in the Air Force as a navigator specializing in electronics warfare and digital systems. After his service he was employed for sixteen years as concept developer for TRW, an aerospace and automotive company, and then was CEO of a non-profit Internet provider for 18 months. Russ's articles have appeared in Comstock's Business, Capitol Journal, Trailer Life, Monitoring Times, and Idaho Magazine.

9 Responses to

  1. Russ says:

    As temperatures remain flat, while the CO2 continues to rise, other rational scientists will evaluate their positions, especially after they have retired and are not longer dependent on the revenue stream from climate change government grants. Once the economic incentive is removed, scientist can think more clearly about the issue. I think that is also true of freelance bloggers who are not on the government dole, as they can do the real world data analysis without bias and write up the results without worrying if their analysis will result is self-elimination from the AGW community.

  2. ggoodknight says:

    This is a very welcome change of events. I’ve spread the following Lovelock quote (March 2010, to The Guardian) a number of times, and Alarmists usually react badly:

    “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.”

    Alarmists generally try to say, well, if you believe Lovelock on that, you should believe him on Gaia, too. The difference is, to accept Gaia, you are accepting his scientific and metaphysical reasoning and conclusions. To accept his report on what senior IPCC scientists say behind closed doors you only have to believe Lovelock is a good and honest man, about which I have no doubt whatsoever.

  3. ggoodknight says:

    This reply is for the alarmist Steven Frisch, CEO of the misnamed “Sierra Business Council”:

    “Heh…heh…heh….”

    Thanks Steve, I am happy to reuse your words in a delicious retort.

  4. gjrebane says:

    If my thesis is correct that AGW has long ago passed into the realm of agenda politics at the upper end, and fanatic religion on the lower end (witness our local loonies), then Lovelock’s epiphany doesn’t affect a goddam thing in the corridors of power (CARB and Moonbeam implementing AB32). Their constituents (the sheeple) are beyond redemption by reason. In any event, I’m always glad to see another one resign from from the Kumbayah Chorus.

  5. ggoodknight says:

    I think you’re completely wrong on that one, George. In ecology, Lovelock is purer than Caesar’s wife, and the alarmists are not used to apostasy.

  6. gjrebane says:

    ggoodknight 706 – Greg, didn’t catch what you meant was in error – or was my whole comment wrong?

  7. ggoodknight says:

    The bit about agenda politics at the upper end is defensible but I think not much else.

    Synchronized saluting the IPCC flag run up the flagpole was a virtual Olympic sport in the mid ‘oughts, The importance of an icon like Lovelock backing off shouldn’t be minimized; this is a red letter day.

  8. Dixon Cruickshank says:

    check Obama’s comments today – he’s all in, somebody should club him with it I hope

  9. I’m sure than as long as the temperature on the thermometer does not go up, it does not matter that a lot of ice at 32 degrees is being converted to water at 32 degrees:

    http://yubanet.com/enviro/Warm-ocean-currents-cause-majority-of-ice-loss-from-Antarctica.php#.T5lpWsXh_Tp

    Move along, there is no evidence here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: