Godfather of Global Warming: AGW doomsday Predictions are Incorrect

Green

Wow, just wow!

 

I just looked at the Guardian for Lovelock, interesting interview:

James Lovelock on shale gas and the problem with 'greens' | Environment | guardian.co.uk

While there's lots to read, I found the following interesting:

 

Of course they are incorrect. The big rock is supposed to smack us on 12-21-2012.

 

You shouldnt believe every movie you see.

I heard it was Godzilla returning on a Global rampage.

 

A few quotes the OP seems to have 'forgotten' to post:

"The fear of nuclear is now too great after Fukushima and the cost of building new build plants is very expensive and impractical."

"Hydro, biomass, solar, etc, have all got great promise"

"You've got to cut back on burning fossil fuels, but you've also got to be sensible and reasonable. Like when in business, you've got to adapt to each new situation and try to survive until things get better. "

"The people who don't believe in the environment and climate science, etc, are the deniers. They are a totally different category [to the greens]. They've got their own religion. They believe that the world was right before these damn people [the greens] came along and want to go back to where we were 20 years ago. That's also silly in its own way."

I am hoping the OP will explain how he happened to 'forget' to post these parts of the interview.

 

Seems to me that Lovelock is stating what many advocates of alternative energies are stating. That the solution for replacing fossil fuels is all of the above, no magic bullet.

As for 'doomsday' scenerious, the serious scientists have been saying for the last two decades that the big danger in global warming creating a climate change is the affects on agriculture and infrastructure. We had a foretaste of this in 2010 and 2011. Plus there is the little matter of the ocean clathrates, and how they are reacting to the increased warming.

 

I didnt forget anything; they werent relevant to the point I was illustrating that many scientists are becoming increasingly critical of the AGW side of the debate.

I agree with the statements you quote, and only qualify the last one by asserting that yes, I have my own religion and do not need to replace it with enviornmental wacko worship of Gaya. I do not agree that it is silly in the least.

God put manking here as stewards of the Earth, but not to worship it.

 

Jim -

Why did you misrepresent the content of the man's statements?

 

Why dont you stop beating your wife?

Saigon, you need to show me where I misrepresented his statements, which IMO, you have failed to do.

And thanks for the negative rep prior to trying to get an explanation from me on my post, Einstein.

Typical leftist view of discussion; to disagree with a lefty is to be dishonest or stupid or evil or some combination of all three.

Which is why such Jacobinism is dangerous to a free democratic society; you guys do not tolerate disagreement whatsoever. You illustrate that.

 

Jim -

The fact that you deliberately removed the half dozen comments which undermine the argument you want to make is not honest posting.

btw, I am not a "lefty" whatever that means.

btw. I didn't neg rep you for anything to do with your political views - purely the fact that you cherry picked the quotes you presented.