THE following is taken from the toronto sun via drudge.com. my comment is at the end.---Hugh Murray
FIRST POSTED: SATURDAY, JUNE 23,
2012 10:56 AM EDT | UPDATED: SATURDAY, JUNE 23,
2012 11:09 AM 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.”
READER'S COMMENTS
»
·
Showing 1-11 of 204 comments
·
humura
Many of the scientists have taken a dismissive view of history. A
thousand years ago, when Greenland was much greener and warmer than today and when
England's wines competed with those of France, Ever earlier, some early
inhabitants of the Shetland Islands ate tropical fish, north of Scotland.
The earth during human times has been both warmer and colder than today.
The predictions of the Greens have proven false. We should not base American or UN policy on false premises, false predictions, and politicized science. For now, we cannot ignore the Greens, who are ever making new demands to restrict energy usage - we must oppose the Greens with their irrational, unscientific religion.
The predictions of the Greens have proven false. We should not base American or UN policy on false premises, false predictions, and politicized science. For now, we cannot ignore the Greens, who are ever making new demands to restrict energy usage - we must oppose the Greens with their irrational, unscientific religion.
No comments:
Post a Comment