Green 'drivel' exposed by godfather of global warming James Lovelock

Green ‘drivel’ exposed
The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria
Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun Saturday, June 23, 2012 03:45 PM EDT

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."

On Saturday, June 23, 2012 2:20:00 PM UTC-7, Thad Floryan wrote:
Green ‘drivel’ exposed
The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria
Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun Saturday, June 23, 2012 03:45 PM EDT

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."

Noted. Thank you, Thad.

http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/c...limate-madness

The prospect of mutually assured destruction has kept the world safe
from atomic bombs for nearly 67 years. Why hasn't it protected us from
the reckless insanity of climate change?

In sci.physics Sam Wormley wrote:
http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/c...limate-madness

The prospect of mutually assured destruction has kept the world safe
from atomic bombs for nearly 67 years. Why hasn't it protected us from
the reckless insanity of climate change?

Because "the reckless insanity of climate change" is a made up issue that
doesn't exist, ass hat.

On 6/23/2012 5:39 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/c...limate-madness

The prospect of mutually assured destruction has kept the world safe
from atomic bombs for nearly 67 years. Why hasn't it protected us from
the reckless insanity of climate change?


More mindless repetition from "Sam-bot".

So, "Sam", destroying the planet to "save" it is your idea of a logical
sane policy?

And I'd add that there is no proof that the world has been "kept safe"
from atomic bombs by this or any other idiot scheme. I'd point to the
large radiation belts created by illegal atomic testing in space which
are STILL THERE, which by Svensmark's theories just COULD be the actual
cause of the "global Warming" that you have been ascribing to CO2.

I just noticed the article's URL missed getting copy'n'pasted:

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

Sorry 'bout that.

On Jun 23, 5:39*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/c...er/climate-mad...

* The prospect of mutually assured destruction has kept the world safe
from atomic bombs for nearly 67 years. Why hasn't it protected us from
the reckless insanity of climate change?

I agree. Lets drop multiple atomic bombs on countries that have
birthrates of 12-14 per thousand, and you who are too stupid and
backward to even feed themselves. THAT would be the best thing that
could happen to Earth's environment you could do.

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:22:17 -0400, bjacoby wrote:

On 6/23/2012 5:39 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/c...limate-madness

The prospect of mutually assured destruction has kept the world safe
from atomic bombs for nearly 67 years. Why hasn't it protected us from
the reckless insanity of climate change?


More mindless repetition from "Sam-bot".

So, "Sam", destroying the planet to "save" it is your idea of a logical
sane policy?

And I'd add that there is no proof that the world has been "kept safe"
from atomic bombs by this or any other idiot scheme. I'd point to the
large radiation belts created by illegal atomic testing in space which
are STILL THERE, which by Svensmark's theories just COULD be the actual
cause of the "global Warming" that you have been ascribing to CO2.

Interesting.

In sci.physics RichA wrote:
On Jun 23, 5:39Â*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/c...er/climate-mad...

Â* The prospect of mutually assured destruction has kept the world safe
from atomic bombs for nearly 67 years. Why hasn't it protected us from
the reckless insanity of climate change?

I agree. Lets drop multiple atomic bombs on countries that have
birthrates of 12-14 per thousand, and you who are too stupid and
backward to even feed themselves. THAT would be the best thing that
could happen to Earth's environment you could do.

So what do you do with countries that have birth rates between 14 and 50
per thousand?

Or did you mean all those with a rate greater that 12-13 per thousand?

At 14 per thousand, you would be nuking 142 of the 221 countries.

At 12 per thousand, you would be nuking 162 of the 221 countries, or
73% of the countries of the world.

And since several of those 162 countries are suspected of having access to
nuclear weapons themselves, the outcome might be a bit messy.

Thad Floryan wrote:

(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.

Yeah, the Sun really could orbit the Earth, huh, you ****ing insane
right wing Christian loon?

---
http://www.skeptictank.org/
Vote Romney November 6th, enjoy your pink slip on November 9th.
Super-Kamiokande, because science is "of Satan."