James Lovelock - Mea Culpa

[Keepitsimple]

Kudos to Mr. Lovelock. Usually, the older you get, the more you become set in your ways. But even at 92, he has reasoned things out and modified his views.

Influential scientist James Lovelock admits that he’s been a bit of an alarmist when it comes to matters of global warming and climate change. Though he wouldn’t call himself a “denier” by any stretch of the imagination, he concedes that the earth really hasn’t changed as much as he apocalyptically predicted it would, and throws other environmental activists under the bus as well, including Al Gore.

“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,” he said back in 2006. Now, 6 years later, he told MSNBC that he had been “extrapolating too far,” in recent years.

A favorite of the environmental movement, Lovelock is probably best-known for his “Gaia” model of the earth as a single organism. The 92-year-old scientist is writing a new book in which he will say climate change is still a very real issue, but that it’s just not happening as fast as he once thought.

Even though the world isn’t much warmer that it was 12 years ago, according to Lovelock’s old theories, “we were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” which seems hardly the world we live in. He admitted, “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added. Though he has not changed his mind about climate change, he has changed his extremist doomsday-laden positions, and calls Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers” as other examples of “alarmist” forecasts of the future.

Though readily admitting his mistake, Lovelock still keeps the faith. Asked whether or not he was a global warming skeptic, he replied: “It depends what you mean by a skeptic. I’m not a denier,” specifying, “We will have global warming, but it’s been deferred a bit.”

Link: http://www.inquisitr.com/224934/global-warming-scientist-james-lovelock-admits-to-being-an-alarmist/

Edited April 27, 2012 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

Kudos to Mr. Lovelock. Usually, the older you get, the more you become set in your ways. But even at 92, he has reasoned things out and modified his views.

sorry to burst you denier bubble; however, the guy is a loon, never had any credibility and was always viewed as being on the fringe of the fringe... I doubt you ever heard of him before you jumped forward to trumpet another MLW denier angle, hey? If there was ever any doubt about Lovelock's idiocy, it was solidified when he started down his population doom theme... where he actually suggested the Chinese, lock stock and barrel, would be moving to Africa... that they're already actively working on and preparing for, "the African move".

[GostHacked]

sorry to burst you denier bubble; however, the guy is a loon, never had any credibility and was always viewed as being on the fringe of the fringe... I doubt you ever heard of him before you jumped forward to trumpet another MLW denier angle, hey? If there was ever any doubt about Lovelock's idiocy, it was solidified when he started down his population doom theme... where he actually suggested the Chinese, lock stock and barrel, would be moving to Africa... that they're already actively working on and preparing for, "the African move".

The Chinese are already heavy into Africa as they are in South America and Central/Latin America. The move already happened from the Chinese, now we have a new move into Africa by NATO and the UN.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

It's funny how everyone that comes out against climate change (climate is ALWAYS CHANGING) they are classified as a loon, or as a 'fake denier' or some stuff like that.

[bleeding heart]

It's funny how everyone that comes out against climate change (climate is ALWAYS CHANGING) they are classified as a loon, or as a 'fake denier' or some stuff like that.

I guess "alarmist" and "brainwashed" are non-judgemental, objective descriptors, then.

[waldo]

sorry to burst you denier bubble; however, the guy is a loon, never had any credibility and was always viewed as being on the fringe of the fringe... I doubt you ever heard of him before you jumped forward to trumpet another MLW denier angle, hey? If there was ever any doubt about Lovelock's idiocy, it was solidified when he started down his population doom theme... where he actually suggested the Chinese, lock stock and barrel, would be moving to Africa... that they're already actively working on and preparing for, "the African move".

The Chinese are already heavy into Africa as they are in South America and Central/Latin America. The move already happened from the Chinese, now we have a new move into Africa by NATO and the UN.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

you don't know what you're talking about! Your described Chinese move(s) have nothing to do with Lovelock's bizzaro projection... the one where he claimed that by 2040 Chinese domestic industrialization would make China completely uninhabitable... forcing a wholesale "nation move"... to Africa.

It's funny how everyone that comes out against climate change (climate is ALWAYS CHANGING) they are classified as a loon, or as a 'fake denier' or some stuff like that.

For what it's worth, Lovelock hasn't tempered his belief in AGW climate change... one bit. He's simply walked back his former population doomsday idiocy. You'll need another angle to play your tired, "keeping the poor denier man down", theme! Sorry to burst your bubble.

[bleeding heart]

you don't know what you're talking about! Your described Chinese move(s) have nothing to do with Lovelock's bizzaro projection... the one where he claimed that by 2040 Chinese domestic industrialization would make China completely uninhabitable... forcing a wholesale "nation move"... to Africa.

For what it's worth, Lovelock hasn't tempered his belief in AGW climate change... one bit. He's simply walked back his former population doomsday idiocy. You'll need another angle to play your tired, "keeping the poor denier man down", theme! Sorry to burst your bubble.

+1 for Waldo.

[Keepitsimple]

Looney or not, here we have a former doomsdayer who has managed to cough up the Kool-aid and heed the observational data of the past 15 years. It's part of the drip, drip, drip string of facts that demonstrate that the human influence on Climate Change is not one of dominance. Temperatures have stabilized, polar bears are not dwindling, penguins are doing fine, himalayan glaciers are not in danger of disppearing by 2035, no major hurricanes have hit the US since Katrina, contrary to predictions that regular snowcover will be a thing of the past, people are still skiing in Canada and the US......and it's been pretty cold in Europe for a few years. Climate Change is still happening......but people are not rushing to sell their seaside condos just yet. I think we're nearing the "tipping point" for alarmism.

Edited April 28, 2012 by Keepitsimple

[huh]

Looney or not, here we have a former doomsdayer who has managed to cough up the Kool-aid and heed the observational data of the past 15 years. It's part of the drip, drip, drip string of facts that demonstrate that the human influence on Climate Change is not one of dominance. Temperatures have stabilized, polar bears are not dwindling, penguins are doing fine, himalayan glaciers are not in danger of disppearing by 2035, no major hurricanes have hit the US since Katrina, contrary to predictions that regular snowcover will be a thing of the past, people are still skiing in Canada and the US......and it's been pretty cold in Europe for a few years. Climate Change is still happening......but people are not rushing to sell their seaside condos just yet. I think we're nearing the "tipping point" for alarmism.

It doesnt matter, climate change is a religion now, it's a belief system, the same people who hate religion are climate believers now, and they see nothing wrong with it. Im a believer in climate change, not a believer in climate fanaticism, better start planning for the next ice age people, you think a few degrees warmer is bad? Not that it has even happened yet. Oh hey, its been getting better in the arctic recently, and quite good this year, but i know its thin, cuz you know colder temps cant make thicker ice, just more thin ice. Oh its the albedo, all that open water, absorbing more heat from the sun, whereas the ice would reflect it. You would almost think it would have to be extra cold in order to overcome the momentum of that effect in order to make more ice, and oh look, it has been, maybe that trend will continue, maybe not. But the certainty of global warming, which has been supplanted by 'climate change' in order to account for the vagaries of climate variation and prediction, because the certainty simply doesn't exist.

[waldo]

Looney or not, here we have a former doomsdayer who has managed to cough up the Kool-aid and heed the observational data of the past 15 years.

perfect! You attempt to double-down while acknowledging, "yes, the guy is a loon". As for the last 15 years observational data, in a previous MLW thread, your last emboldened BS had you trumpeting the British tabloid, "hasn't warmed since 1997", BS... we are still waiting for your follow-up. Is there a problem in why you haven't... and can't... provide support to your assertion?

Huh? As I said.....the graph goes from 1850 to current......you can't really see what's happened in the last 15 years - but to look at it, you can imagine that it hasn't moved much. Why not rerbut by providing the actual data for the last 15 years - which was the argument?

what argument? Present that actual argument of serial misinformer, British tabloid hack "journalist, David Rose... where does he provide any data... any graphics... anything at all, to support his fallacious claims?

notwithstanding the schooling you've repeatedly suffered over your failure to grasp sound basic fundamentals of trending (that a short-term 15 year period is not representative of longer-term climate trending, that 97/98 are purposeful denier cherry-picking, etc.); from that same MLW thread, let me also double-down on your failure to step-up with actual data to support your past... and continued... 15 year observational data nonsense:

how fake skeptics make deliberate misinterpretations of temperature data

... already dispatched. Not ended... not slowed... and not natural

5 major global temperature data sets - annual averages with natural influences removed;

It's part of the drip, drip, drip string of facts that demonstrate that the human influence on Climate Change is not one of dominance.

I will simply present the same request always presented to you... the same request you continue to ignore... the same request you can't provide an answer to: "step up and present support for your claimed alternate principal causal tie/link for the relatively recent global warming... an alternate principal causal tie/link, other than anthropogenic sourced fossil-fuel emissions". Your, "drip, drip, drip, absence of facts", is quite telling! Your absence of support/facts, certainly doesn't dissuade you from continuing your denier drumbeat, hey?

Temperatures have stabilized

no - temperatures have not stabilized... see previous 2 links. Certainly, feel free to provide support for your continued, "temperatures have stabilized", assertion... waiting...

polar bears are not dwindling

yes, you failed at this in another recent MLW thread... notwithstanding other significant countering response has come in/against the study you attempted to leverage, I'll simply throw back the early reply to your continued BS:

.....and the Polar Bears are not being decimated. Another plank in the doomsayers' Global Warming alarmism is splintering.

as is your denial penchant, you would presume on a single isolated reference/review and extrapolate it, at large... there are 19 recognized sub-populations of polar bears... the Western Hudson Bay area is but one of those 19.

an earlier related post:

- considerable

scientific research of polar bear population exists

, notwithstanding the anecdotal observances.

According to a 2009 report by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, of the 19 recognized sub-populations of polar bears, 8 are in decline, 1 is increasing, 3 are stable and 7 don’t have enough data to draw any conclusions.

from the previous linked polar bear status table, one of the notes associated with the Western Hudson Bay sub-population group identifies a possible northern shift in the distribution of polar bears... of course, relative to decreasing ice, earlier ice-breakup and resulting nutritionally-stressed polar bears. Clearly, unless one has a Simple agenda, given bear mobility and climate change ice impacts, no single polar bear sub-population grouping analysis/review, in isolation, can be presumed to offer a sweeping generalized commentary on overall polar bear status/population.

in any case, one comment coming forward on that recent Nunuvat aerial survey:

Andrew Derocher - research scientist - UofA Biological Sciences:

It’s premature to draw many conclusions... some details in the survey point to a bear population in trouble. For example, the survey identified 50 cubs, which are usually less than 10 months old, and 22 yearlings, roughly 22 months old. That’s nearly one-third the number required for a healthy population. This is a clear indication that this population is not sustaining itself in any way, shape, or form.

the same Andrew Derocher... in the Western Hudson Bay/Churchill -

himalayan glaciers are not in danger of disappearing by 2035

your desperation is showing by continuing to play this well discussed IPCC WG2 "2035" nonsense; in any case, lower Himalayan glaciers are most certainly, most absolutely, melting at continued rapid rates... feel free to provide any countering evidence to this. I've certainly had many scientifically founded posts that speak to the actual melting of lower Himalayan glaciers... unless you come back with additional nonsense on this point, for now, I'll defer referencing those in favour of another post that actual speaks to the "2035" BS you continue to perpetuate... as well as actual IPCC statements, in kind:

...there was a relatively recent period of concentrated denier effort to undermine the IPCC; an effort that centered upon finding obscure "errors" within the sub-group WG2 report... the report that focuses on more of the social-sciences related to, "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability" (with a regional emphasis)... a sub-report that has nothing to do with the underlying physical science. In this case, the "error" was so dramatic and significant... that it sat "undisturbed" for 3 years after the report was released; i.e., much ado about nothing. That actual "error" reflected upon a non-peer reviewed publication that quoted the speculation of an Indian scientist... the actual report verbiage read, "

In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: “glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high

". That's it... that the sole basis for the so-called "Glaciergate" buzz that resounded around the denialsphere and bounced on up into the mainstream courtesy of British tabloid "journalists" at their

best

worst.

- for perspective on the insignificance of the "error"... it never became a major claim of the IPCC. As is the pattern for IPCC reports, all sub-group reports are worked through by coordinating lead authors with a summation intent... a key facet of this effort is one intended to ensure continuity of like/related statements across the various sub-group reports. In this particular case, the "error" went "uncorrected" and remained buried within the depths of the WG2 sub-group report. With emphasis, it never materialized within the final summary Synthesis Report, or the Technical Summary Report, or the Summary for Policymakers Report. Again, it was never a major claim made by the IPCC... it was simply an obscure sub-group report reference that wasn't caught in the review process... within the thousands of pages of IPCC reports.

- a few posts back, I purposely quoted from the IPCC Synthesis Report... the summation detail that reflects the so-called stated claims/positions of the IPCC (a reflection of the 'rolled-up' detail from the sub-group reports).

This is the actual relevant statement from the IPCC AR4 as concerns glacier melt, particularly Himalayan glacier melt

... it's the same statement the IPCC quoted in it's official response to the trumped up denier meltdown over this so-called "Glaciergate". Again:

Climate change is expected to exacerbate current stresses on water resources from population growth and economic and land-use change, including urbanisation. On a regional scale, mountain snow pack, glaciers and small ice caps play a crucial role in freshwater availability. Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives.

I think we're nearing the "tipping point" for alarmism.

I think we're no where near the tipping point on your personal denial... it continues to run strong, run deep!

[waldo]

Im a believer in climate change

But the certainty of global warming, which has been supplanted by 'climate change' in order to account for the vagaries of climate variation and prediction, because the certainty simply doesn't exist.

fresh meat? Feel free to raise your doubts on the, as you say, "certainty of global warming".

you playing off the, "global warming vs. climate change", is a tried and true denier canard... one we've dispatched many times over through assorted MLW GWCC related threads. Carry on!

the rest of your blathering post is not worth bothering with.