johnny138 wrote:Tigerman wrote:BigJohn wrote:Sure. It's OK to be offensive on the flob...
Fred doesn't offend me...
Anyway... have a look at this:
The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteriaJames Lovelock, the godfather of global warming and the 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, and who's electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere wrote:
(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.”
This is the final nail in the coffin and I'm not surprised it isn't being discussed. The "godfather" of the movement himself says this stuff was waaaaaay overblown and that they were WRONG. But naturally that doesn't stop the proponents of the naturalistic religion from driving that ideologic train.
04teacherlin is right. It would be equally accurate to say nature, left alone, "produces" no CO2 at all. Google "carbon cycle". There is a baseline level of CO2 in the air that is continually being removed and augmented - but it's not the same CO2 from moment to moment because it's being circulated through living organisms, the earth, and the sea. The state of the system is stable and self-maintaining, even with a certain level of disturbance.
Measuring atmospheric CO2 is therefore a bit like a doctor measuring blood cholesterol levels.
It's not an indication of how much cholesterol you're putting into your body, but a measure of how well your body is maintaining a sensible circulating level (cholesterol is used by, and synthesized by, your own body, principally as a raw material for steroid hormones, so it's under active management). If the levels are "off", it's because your body is unable to cope with something you're doing to it - and not necessarily excess cholesterol going in.
That's why I think Steviebike has a better approach - focus on pollution in general, and its negative effects, and see what we can do to reduce it considerably. Understanding the earth's interlocking control loops, and then setting some arbitrary limit for anthropogenic emissions, seems like a slippery task, at best.
In fact, who cares what the limit is? Does it matter if it's 2GT/year, 20, or 50? Are we seriously considering polluting simply because we can? Is nobody interested in whether we need to? Whether we are getting something of benefit in return? The bizarre thing about the modern world is that we've achieved what the pundits said we would: freedom. Provision of everything a human could need, for a relatively low labour input. And what did we decide to fill our leisure time with? More work!
How much of what goes on in the world is done in the name of "creating employment", I wonder? Pick a random middle manager in the local government, or Cargill, or IBM, or Asia Pulp and Paper - would the world stop turning if they stayed at home this year? If the corporation folded entirely, would humanity crumble?
An awful lot of the pollution and waste that goes on is 100% unnecessary, and it would be 110% unnecessary if people would learn how to stop doing things. Fred's fulminating about money-wasting NGOs is really just the edge of that big picture.
I find this description of Lovelock as "Godfather of Global Warming" quite amusing. I've never heard him called that before, and distinctly remember one of my university professor's in climate back in the early 90's (who incidentally is one of the world's leading atmospheric scientists) saying that Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis needed to be taken with a grain of salt. He's definitely not considered the Godfather of Global Warming among climate scientists.
fred smith wrote:I find this description of Lovelock as "Godfather of Global Warming" quite amusing. I've never heard him called that before, and distinctly remember one of my university professor's in climate back in the early 90's (who incidentally is one of the world's leading atmospheric scientists) saying that Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis needed to be taken with a grain of salt. He's definitely not considered the Godfather of Global Warming among climate scientists.
So which one was the leading atmospheric scientist that YOU studied with?
Awards and accolades received by Professor Pitman include: NSW Scientist of the Year Award (2010), the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographical Medal (2009), the Dean’s Award for Science Leadership at Macquarie University (2005), the Priestly Medal for Excellence in Atmospheric Science Research (2004) and the Geoff Conolly Memorial Award (2004). He jointly won the International Justice Prize for the Copenhagen Diagnosis (2010) and was among Sydney Magazine’s list of the 100 most influential people (2010).
He was a climate change alarmist and extremist and now has turned on himself. He isn't denying AGW by the way, just some of the extreme outcomes that he himself was one of the major proponents of not so long ago . The world should pat him on the head and ask him to say "I have a lovely bunch of coconuts" over and over again.
Forumosans browsing this forum: MikeN and 2 guests