Godfather of Global Warming: AGW doomsday Predictions are Incorrect

[JimBowie1958]

Green

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.”

Wow, just wow!

 

[Annie]

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:

...On science:

Science is going down the drain terribly fast. It keeps dividing itself up into expertises and these expertises probably don't know much about the others. I think in order to be a fully rounded person you have to learn to be a pro at one thing, but then you can become a generalist.

On the reaction to his MSBC interview in April in which he said he had made a "mistake" with some of his "alarmist" climate predictions:

I ignore the blogosphere. I don't know much about it other than an instinctive desire to keep out of it. It can be so rude from what I've seen. It's not my scene at all. I'm too old for that now. But the great thing about being an independent, though, is that you can afford to make mistakes. This is very important. You learn more from the mistakes. It's a natural part of the learning process. You should be allowed to make a mistake and suffer the consequences. I think the most outrageous example of climate scientists getting it wrong and not admitting it was the 2007 IPPC report. They happily accepted the Nobel prize, but their sea-level rise estimates, according to that very important Science paper by Rahmstorf (pdf), were 100% wrong. They didn't really answer this other than say it's a very complicated business and we've only just started. The IPCC is too politicised and too internalised. Whenever the UN puts its finger in it seems to become a mess. But I wish I knew of a better model than the IPCC. The burden of my thoughts are very much that the whole climate situation is more complex than we at present are capable of handling, or possibly even in the future. You can't treat it as a scientific problem alone. You have to involve the whole world and then there's the time constant of human activity. Look at how long ago the Kyoto Treaty was now – 15 years ago – and damn all has been done. The human time constant is very slow. You don't get major changes in under 50-100 years and climate doesn't wait for that...

 

[uscitizen]

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

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

 

[Saigon]

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

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.

 

[Saigon]

Jim -

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

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

 

[Saigon]

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.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

The point of my post was "AGW doomsday Predictions are Incorrect".

"The fear of nuclear is now too great after Fukushima and the cost of building new build plants is very expensive and impractical." - This has nothing to do with my point.


"Hydro, biomass, solar, etc, have all got great promise" - This has nothing to do with my point.

"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. " - This has nothing to do with my point.

"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." - This has nothing to do with my point.

Your items are irrelevant to what I was asserting. I cant believe you are this stupid that you cant grasp what I am saying and so I am coming to believe that you are simply an ass and a troll.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

I went out and examined the big rock.
Could have nudged it aside, or vaporized it, but should not interfere in the lower life forms fates.

 

[Saigon]

Jim -

THIS quote was relevent to your point. You left it out because it completely undermines your position.


"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."

 

[JimBowie1958]

Jim -

THIS quote was relevent to your point. You left it out because it completely undermines your position.


"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."

No, it is not. I am refering to the science not the supposed motivations behind claims regarding the science.

The quote you gave is merely this mans opinion and since he is not an expert telepath and cannot read peoples minds, his opinion bears no more weight than that of anyone else.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

I went out and examined the big rock.
Could have nudged it aside, or vaporized it, but should not interfere in the lower life forms fates.

Figures you'd get the WRONG ROCK!

The one you should have checked got vaporized when Godzilla busted out!

Dont you know ANYTHING?

lol

 

[Flopper]

Globally, 9 of the 10 warmest years on record occurred since 2000.

Record and near-record breaking temperatures dominated the eastern two-thirds of the nation and contributed to the warmest March on record for the contiguous United States, a record that dates back to 1895.

Only the winters of 1991-1992, 1998-1999, 1999-2000 were warmer than 2011-2012. All of this is based on records dating back to 1890s.

No one knows how hot it's going to get but one thing is undeniable. It's damn hot out there and its getting hotter nearly every year.


: Globally, 9 of the 10 warmest years on record occurred since 2000
You Have Just Experienced the Hottest US Winter on Record : TreeHugger
NOAA: Fourth Warmest Winter on Record - weather.com

 

[Old Rocks]

There is a 30 to 50 year lag on the effects of the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere. So what we are seeing today is the effects of the GHG level from 1982. The people that keep very accurate track of the cost of extreme weather events, Swiss Re and Munich Re both state that we are seeing an increase the number of those events, a 300% to 500% increase.

The pace of the melt in the cryosphere, and the resultant feedback in energy absorption, represents a very serious danger. We saw many areas in the East Siberian Coastal Shelf with clathrates outgassing to the point that they were creating kilometer wide boils in which CH4 was venting straight to the atmosphere.

While a few, very few, scientists are predicting doomsday, most are predicting that there will be some very negative affects on infrastructure and agriculture that will be bad cess for a large portion of the world's population. Thus far, the predictions of these scientists have been a bit on the conservative side. The Arctic Ice Cap is where it was predicted to be in the latter half of this century. And the affects of the warming are already being seen in the amount of extreme precipitation events.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Globally, 9 of the 10 warmest years on record occurred since 2000.

Record and near-record breaking temperatures dominated the eastern two-thirds of the nation and contributed to the warmest March on record for the contiguous United States, a record that dates back to 1895.

Only the winters of 1991-1992, 1998-1999, 1999-2000 were warmer than 2011-2012. All of this is based on records dating back to 1890s.

No one knows how hot it's going to get but one thing is undeniable. It's damn hot out there and its getting hotter nearly every year.


: Globally, 9 of the 10 warmest years on record occurred since 2000
You Have Just Experienced the Hottest US Winter on Record : TreeHugger
NOAA: Fourth Warmest Winter on Record - weather.com

Hmmm, you might want to look at some of the data and reports about how Hansen has been 'adjusting' his data. Seems that past reports have had different temperatures for the same year.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/a-temperature-a.html

Hansen's Global Fever

Uncorrupted US Temperature Data Showed Cooling From 1930 To 1999 | Real Science

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/more-hansen-bs/

Hansen is a bald0facedliar and this whole field is rife with corruption, fraud and pure bullshit.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There is a 30 to 50 year lag on the effects of the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere. So what we are seeing today is the effects of the GHG level from 1982. The people that keep very accurate track of the cost of extreme weather events, Swiss Re and Munich Re both state that we are seeing an increase the number of those events, a 300% to 500% increase.

The pace of the melt in the cryosphere, and the resultant feedback in energy absorption, represents a very serious danger. We saw many areas in the East Siberian Coastal Shelf with clathrates outgassing to the point that they were creating kilometer wide boils in which CH4 was venting straight to the atmosphere.

While a few, very few, scientists are predicting doomsday, most are predicting that there will be some very negative affects on infrastructure and agriculture that will be bad cess for a large portion of the world's population. Thus far, the predictions of these scientists have been a bit on the conservative side. The Arctic Ice Cap is where it was predicted to be in the latter half of this century. And the affects of the warming are already being seen in the amount of extreme precipitation events.

What you are seeing, IMO, is hype brought on by suggestion.

The Arctic ice cap has been smaler and Greeenlands glaciers have been smaller.

We have seen more than a century of warming because we came out of the 'Little Ice Age'. So of course we would see temperatures rising, but no different than in the past. The mideaval warm period was so warm they grew grapes for wine in northern England.

But the key fact is the complete lack of corelation between the continued rise of CO2 the past ten years and the plateu of temperatures that everyone outside of Hansens feifdom at NASA shows is true.

 

[Old Rocks]

Due to the aerosols created by the industrial rise of India and China, the temperatures have not risen as much as predicted. That is a fact. However, the effects are far more pronounced than even Hansen predicted.

The combination of the Arctic melt, and the extreme dryness of our Southwest, are vindication of the predictions of the alarmists. In fact, over vindication, for they both exceed the predictions. Then the is the matter of the increase in numbers of extreme weather events. Both Swiss Re and Munich Re, the two biggest re-insurance agencies in the world confirm the numbers.