Climategate--The Final Chapter
06-22-2012, 03:00 PM
#332
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
I would click on the link but the title suggests another algore production. And that could be fatally boring.
06-23-2012, 05:57 AM
#333
With The Resistance
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
What a Crock!
Green ‘drivel’
The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria
By Lorrie Goldstein,Toronto Sun
First posted: Saturday, June 23, 2012 06:03 PM EDT
James Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist.
Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change.
The implications were extraordinary.
Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory.
Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic.
His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other scientific organizations.
Lovelock’s invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental movement.
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.
He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.
Among his observations to the Guardian:
(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.
As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)
(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.
“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”
(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.
As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”
(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.”
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel
The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria
By Lorrie Goldstein,Toronto Sun
First posted: Saturday, June 23, 2012 06:03 PM EDT
James Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist.
Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change.
The implications were extraordinary.
Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory.
Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic.
His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other scientific organizations.
Lovelock’s invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental movement.
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.
He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.
Among his observations to the Guardian:
(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.
As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)
(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.
“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”
(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.
As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”
(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.”
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel
06-23-2012, 06:40 AM
#334
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: electron wrangler
Posts: 372
Re: Climategate--The Final Chapter
Originally Posted by jungle
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...
Am I getting that right?
Asked if he was now a climate skeptic, Lovelock told msnbc.com: “It depends what you mean by a skeptic. I’m not a denier.”
He said human-caused carbon dioxide emissions were driving an increase in
the global temperature, but added that the effect of the oceans was not well enough understood and could have a key role...
He said human-caused carbon dioxide emissions were driving an increase in
the global temperature, but added that the effect of the oceans was not well enough understood and could have a key role...
06-23-2012, 06:58 AM
#335
With The Resistance
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
What is clear is that the CO2 based models don't work, most climate change took place before man existed, and nobody has a full understanding of all the factors involved.
It is also clear that "green energy" is drivel, and that natural cycles have driven the vast majority of climate change since the Earth has existed.
I don't trade in hysteria, but from your many posts here it is clear that hysteria is your main currency.
It is also clear that "green energy" is drivel, and that natural cycles have driven the vast majority of climate change since the Earth has existed.
I don't trade in hysteria, but from your many posts here it is clear that hysteria is your main currency.
06-23-2012, 09:26 AM
#336
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: electron wrangler
Posts: 372
Re: Climategate--The Final Chapter
Originally Posted by jungle
What is clear is that the CO2 based models don't work, most climate change took place before man existed, and nobody has a full understanding of all the factors involved.
It is also clear that "green energy" is drivel, and that natural cycles have driven the vast majority of climate change since the Earth has existed.
I don't trade in hysteria, but from your many posts here it is clear that hysteria is your main currency.
It is also clear that "green energy" is drivel, and that natural cycles have driven the vast majority of climate change since the Earth has existed.
I don't trade in hysteria, but from your many posts here it is clear that hysteria is your main currency.
Do you agree with Lovelock that anthropogenic global warming is real or are you refuting the legitimacy of the source you just linked?
06-23-2012, 09:56 AM
#337
With The Resistance
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
You did note Lovelock says he believes-this means he can offer no proof, it is his gut belief, absent any proof.
What has been proven is that ALL climate change involves natural cycles, in other words climate change happened on a grand scale prior to man. If man vanished from the face of the Earth today, climate change will continue.
What has been proven is that ALL climate change involves natural cycles, in other words climate change happened on a grand scale prior to man. If man vanished from the face of the Earth today, climate change will continue.
06-24-2012, 05:40 AM
#338
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: electron wrangler
Posts: 372
Re: Climategate--The Final Chapter
Originally Posted by jungle
You did note Lovelock says he believes-this means he can offer no proof, it is his gut belief, absent any proof.
that there is always some uncertainty in science and the discipline takes steps
toward the truth without ever knowing it precisely.
If you can point to chapter and verse of Lovelock saying the science of global
warming is just a gut belief absent any proof, I'd be interested in reading that.
He still maintains anthropogenic global warming is occurring but recalibrated the predictions he made in his 2006 book. He hasn't become a denier so I'm confused
as to why you would bring him up.
One scientist rethinking the timeline in his book is not justification to junk the
scientific method or dismiss a whole field of science.
I've said this before but it bears repeating. It is truly remarkable to me that pilots
in the 21st century can demonstrate such contempt for science. How did we get
to this point?
.
Last edited by N2264J; 06-24-2012 at 05:55 AM.
06-24-2012, 06:27 AM
#339
With The Resistance
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
Originally Posted by N2264J
If you can point to chapter and verse of Lovelock saying the science of global
warming is just a gut belief absent any proof, I'd be interested in reading that.
He still maintains anthropogenic global warming is occurring but recalibrated the predictions he made in his 2006 book. He hasn't become a denier so I'm confused
as to why you would bring him up.
One scientist rethinking the timeline in his book is not justification to junk the
scientific method or dismiss a whole field of science.
I've said this before but it bears repeating. It is truly remarkable to me that pilots
in the 21st century can demonstrate such contempt for science. How did we get
to this point?
.
warming is just a gut belief absent any proof, I'd be interested in reading that.
He still maintains anthropogenic global warming is occurring but recalibrated the predictions he made in his 2006 book. He hasn't become a denier so I'm confused
as to why you would bring him up.
One scientist rethinking the timeline in his book is not justification to junk the
scientific method or dismiss a whole field of science.
I've said this before but it bears repeating. It is truly remarkable to me that pilots
in the 21st century can demonstrate such contempt for science. How did we get
to this point?
.
Lovelock says that much of the "science" was incorrect in its predictions of climate, and that is true. He also makes it clear that research has taken a certain slant due to funding concerns and that explains why his independence allows him to tell the truth as he sees it.
Nobody here has shown contempt for science except yourself.
Let us know when science has all the answers, or even agreement, because as Lovelock notes we are not there yet.
Why don't you tell us what percentage of climate change is due to man, pick a number between 0 and 100%, show us the science behind your choice of belief.
What if the Earth warmed or cooled 2 degrees C, would that be bad or good and can you tell us why? What exactly would the effects of that much warming or cooling do, is it possible warming would have a benefit? It surely did for the last 20,000 years or so.
Last edited by jungle; 06-24-2012 at 07:26 AM.
06-24-2012, 09:00 AM
#340
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by N2264J
Whatever you were trying to express there is not what Lovelock said. He is saying
that there is always some uncertainty in science and the discipline takes steps
toward the truth without ever knowing it precisely.
If you can point to chapter and verse of Lovelock saying the science of global
warming is just a gut belief absent any proof, I'd be interested in reading that.
He still maintains anthropogenic global warming is occurring but recalibrated the predictions he made in his 2006 book. He hasn't become a denier so I'm confused
as to why you would bring him up.
One scientist rethinking the timeline in his book is not justification to junk the
scientific method or dismiss a whole field of science.
I've said this before but it bears repeating. It is truly remarkable to me that pilots
in the 21st century can demonstrate such contempt for science. How did we get
to this point?
.
that there is always some uncertainty in science and the discipline takes steps
toward the truth without ever knowing it precisely.
If you can point to chapter and verse of Lovelock saying the science of global
warming is just a gut belief absent any proof, I'd be interested in reading that.
He still maintains anthropogenic global warming is occurring but recalibrated the predictions he made in his 2006 book. He hasn't become a denier so I'm confused
as to why you would bring him up.
One scientist rethinking the timeline in his book is not justification to junk the
scientific method or dismiss a whole field of science.
I've said this before but it bears repeating. It is truly remarkable to me that pilots
in the 21st century can demonstrate such contempt for science. How did we get
to this point?
.
Let’s try it in a way you “scientists” will understand. You had a hypothesis. You tested your hypothesis. The test did not support your hypothesis. You cannot claim your hypothesis is correct.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
