If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   Famous first scientist to be "alarmist" over global warming says he was "alarmist" over global warming. Also, see if this good you look when 900 years you reach   (worldnews.msnbc.msn.com) divider line 64
    More: Ironic, James Lovelock, global warming, alarmists, Geological Society of America, government scientists, inconvenient truth, ozone layer, environmental movement  
•       •       •

3376 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Apr 2012 at 12:31 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-24 09:39:20 AM
Oh good. Nothing to worry about, then.
 
2012-04-24 09:49:19 AM
He previously painted some of the direst visions of the effects of climate change. In 2006, in an article in the U.K.'s Independent newspaper, he wrote that "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."

However, the professor admitted in a telephone interview with msnbc.com that he now thinks he had been "extrapolating too far."


How can he change his mind so abruptly after only 6 years?

The new book, due to be published next year, will be the third in a trilogy...

Ah, there it is.

Jim Lovelock has no university, no research institute, no students.

In other words, no peer review. Does anyone listen to this guy besides the media and book publishers?
 
2012-04-24 09:57:13 AM
No shiat, Sherlock

People are paranoid by nature. It is what our ancestors passed on to us as a tool of survival. Unfortunately, we also have complex thought, which is why we see threats that do not exist. That is why you see people preaching about the apocalypse, preaching that the 9/11 attacks were caused by the government, and people preaching about the end of the world due to climate change
 
2012-04-24 10:02:23 AM

cman: No shiat, Sherlock

People are paranoid by nature. It is what our ancestors passed on to us as a tool of survival. Unfortunately, we also have complex thought, which is why we see threats that do not exist. That is why you see people preaching about the apocalypse, preaching that the 9/11 attacks were caused by the government, and people preaching about the end of the world due to climate change


Oh, climate change doesn't mean the end of the world. It just means the deaths of about 400 to 500 million people, if worst case scenario unfolds.
 
2012-04-24 10:51:33 AM

Cythraul: cman: No shiat, Sherlock

People are paranoid by nature. It is what our ancestors passed on to us as a tool of survival. Unfortunately, we also have complex thought, which is why we see threats that do not exist. That is why you see people preaching about the apocalypse, preaching that the 9/11 attacks were caused by the government, and people preaching about the end of the world due to climate change

Oh, climate change doesn't mean the end of the world. It just means the deaths of about 400 to 500 million people, if worst case scenario unfolds.


RIght, and this guy, who was arguing for the worst case, is now saying "Wait a minute, if it *WAS* worse case, we should be a lot worse off than we are now". He's not saying that the climate isn't changing, he's saying that it's not changing as quickly as the extrapolation of the original data suggested.
 
2012-04-24 11:33:18 AM
As "an independent and a loner," he said he did not mind saying "All right, I made a mistake." He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding. ~ James Lovelock

I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists... There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. ~ Michael Crichton
 
2012-04-24 12:42:55 PM
James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his "Gaia" theory of the Earth as a single organism

Gee, you mean this guy's a quack?
 
2012-04-24 12:47:12 PM
So he finally admitted that he as just another one of these.
 
2012-04-24 12:51:35 PM

Bevets: As "an independent and a loner," he said he did not mind saying "All right, I made a mistake." He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding. ~ James Lovelock

I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists... There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. ~ Michael Crichton


When you want an opinion on science, go to a scientist. When you want an opinion on science fiction, go to a science fiction writer.
 
2012-04-24 12:53:24 PM
What about the lady that runs the hippy store selling homeopathic remedies and power crystals? Let's listen to what she has to say so we can make up our minds about what we disagree with climate experts over global climate change.
 
2012-04-24 12:53:51 PM
I am sure people will not be posting any spurious graphs taken completely out of proportion to try and explain something they have no clue about.
 
2012-04-24 12:56:47 PM

thatguyoverthere70: Bevets: As "an independent and a loner," he said he did not mind saying "All right, I made a mistake." He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding. ~ James Lovelock

I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists... There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. ~ Michael Crichton

When you want an opinion on science, go to a scientist. When you want an opinion on science fiction, go to a science fiction writer.


You do know that Micheal Crichton was a doctor, having graduated from Harvard Medical School, right? I imagine he had a fair amount of scientician-ish knowledge.
 
2012-04-24 01:11:04 PM

thatguyoverthere70: Bevets: As "an independent and a loner," he said he did not mind saying "All right, I made a mistake." He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding. ~ James Lovelock

I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists... There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. ~ Michael Crichton

When you want an opinion on science, go to a scientist. When you want an opinion on science fiction, go to a science fiction writer.


When you want the stupidest opinion on anything, go to Bevets.
 
2012-04-24 01:11:20 PM

Dr. Mojo PhD: James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his "Gaia" theory of the Earth as a single organism
Gee, you mean this guy's a quack?


That's pretty much what ecology is all about--everything in nature is interconnected. If you fark up one part of a natural system, you fark up lots of things. If you remove one species, many other species will be affected, and probably not in a good way.

Calling the entire planet one organism might be far-fetched, but it's not total quackery.
 
2012-04-24 01:11:28 PM

dittybopper: thatguyoverthere70: Bevets: As "an independent and a loner," he said he did not mind saying "All right, I made a mistake." He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding. ~ James Lovelock

I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists... There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. ~ Michael Crichton

When you want an opinion on science, go to a scientist. When you want an opinion on science fiction, go to a science fiction writer.

You do know that Micheal Crichton was a doctor, having graduated from Harvard Medical School, right? I imagine he had a fair amount of scientician-ish knowledge.


That doesn't matter. Richard Feynman's spirit could posses Stephen Hawking's body and if he said climate change might have been overstated, zealots would just dismiss him as a crippled old guy who must have his facts wrong.

It's easy to say there's consensus when you just dismiss everyone who disagrees as having an opinion that doesn't matter.

"Nobody that disagrees with me is smart"

"Wow! All the smart people now agree with me! I must be right!"
 
2012-04-24 01:22:01 PM
So, global warming in the last few years (2006 through 2012) has been less than he predicted.

What else important has happened on the last few years?

Oh yeah, a huge global recession.

What happens during a recession? Factory production is down (less pollution from the factories themselves and the power plants that power them), fewer goods are then shipped (less pollution from ships, trucks, and trains), and people drive less (if they are out of work, they aren't commuting daily or going on long vacations, therefore they make less pollution from cars).

So, with less global warming chemicals being polluted into the atmosphere, global warming slowed or stalled.

Duh.

Now that the world economy is imporving, global warming trends should increase to in lock step back to their pre-recession patterns.
 
2012-04-24 01:33:18 PM
I've mentioned Lovelock in many previous posts.

He invented equipment which allowed the measurement of small traces of gases in the atmosphere. This made possible the discovery of the decline of ozone and also the rise of manmade gases that were destroying ozone, CHCs.

He is a "maverick" in that he entertains theories outside of the mainstream, but he is not a crank or an outsider. He is a respected scientist who is near the borders of science, but on the right side of them. Sir Fred Hoyle, whose speculations included panspermia, the idea that ice ages happen much faster (and that we are much closer to the next glaciation), and an idea about communicable diseases such as colds and flu being carried up into the upper atmosphere and falling out on us, creating epidemics, are controversial, but they are scientific in that they are falsifiable and thus testable.

I have read several of his books, including those mentioned in the article. He does speculate and I did feel he was pushing the envelope on the risks. So I'm glad he has back-tracked towards a more plausible timeline.

But note that he is not a denier. He acknowledges the reality of the CO2 rise, the connection to global warming and other climate change, and the anthropogenic source of the greenhouse gases. He has merely realized that the panic he felt six years ago was not justified by the current facts. Climate change will likely proceed slowly enough over the next century that some people will hardly notice it except as news stories about more and more extreme weather events, more species declining or moving to higher altitudes and higher latitudes, and more crop failures, etc.

He is also controversial because he has attacked some of the shibboleths of left-wing environmentalism. He is in favour of nuclear power, for example. He is not quite as unpopular with environmentalists as Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace and shill for the Canadian forest industry, but he is controversial there as well.

This doesn't surprise me. He is concerned about the environment, but in an old-fashioned romantic English sort of way--he loves the countryside and hates the damage that modern agriculture and industry has done, but isn't a treehugger. He's a businessman as well as an inventor and a scientist. He makes money off of his patents.

The name Gaia for his theory that the world is a sort of super-organism that maintains stasis through mechanisms biological as well as geological, was suggested by a friend of his, writer William Golding, famous author of The Lord of the Flies. Golding is a conservative with a cynical dark edge to his view of human nature and society (Original Sin, as Roman Catholics and others call it). If you have read Lord of the Flies or seen the movie, you can imagine how well Golding goes down in the more New Age circles.

Lovelock is an environementalist and concerned about humanity and the biosphere's future, but from a very different point of view. Different from most scientists, different from most environmentalists.

Science and environmentalism are only dark commie plots in the fervid minds of right wing conspiracy theorists. They are not in cahoots, or at least seldom in cahoots. They are quite different things politically and intellectually.

Lovelock is not a crank. Sometimes he is a tad cranky, but he's a good thinker and very smart and he knows enough about doing real science to colour within the lines while thinking outside of the box, to mix metaphors.

His idea of Gaia has been adopted and transformed by New Agers (much to his chagrin, to tell the truth) but it is also popular in geological circles because it solves a great mystery: why does the amount of CO2 being sequestered by geological processes so nearly balance the amount being produced by plants and bacteria? why do so many geological changes seem to balance biological changes so neatly?

Unless you believe in an interventionist Divine Providence, constantly tinkering with the machinery to keep things working, this is a great problem for geology (not so much for biology, which doesn't think or care much about the interaction of life and volcanoes, erosion, and rocks).

The solution may be that life has evolved into a self-regulating system that maintains stasis much the same way a warm-blooded or pseudo-warm blooded organism regulates its body temperature, its pH levels, its salt levels, etc.

The Earth may be an organism in a strong or a weak sense. Not everybody believes this sort of "Pandora" type vision of the world (the Pandora in Avatar is a strong sense organism--it thinks, it acts, it defends itself from infection and death, it literally has a collective brain like the Internet only made up of trees and fungi and stuff), but it's a defensible position.

I recommend that you take Lovelock's statements with a grain of salt, a rational and responsible skepticism. There are a lot of denialists in the world, but very few genuine skeptics. They tend to be contrarians and mavericks like Lovelock. The contrarians are mostly older scientists, mostly meteorologists. They are clinging to their own theories and their own prejudices in the face of new paradigms and new consensus. But the mavericks can have a valuable point of view even, or especially, when they are wrong in thought provoking or difficult to refute ways.

That's science for you--half discipline and rigour, half imagination and hope.
 
2012-04-24 01:39:54 PM
No obvious tag? Thanks to Somalia, the pirate population is rebounding so of course global warming has stalled.
 
2012-04-24 02:04:17 PM
Consensus is an ambiguous term. It can mean "complete agreement". It can also mean "general agreement with many reservations and minority reports; the dominant opinion".

The American Geophysical Union sent polls on climate change to 10,000 of their members. Over 3,100 responded.

This is the source of the statistic that 97% of active climatologists believe that anthropogenic climate change is occurring and that this is a serious problem over the next century and the longer term.

97% is not "complete agreement" but it is "general", indeed, overwhelming agreement. This is the status quo, this is the current, living paradigm. It does not mean that all climatologists support the consensus. There are a handful of rebel climatologists (mostly "denialists", an even smaller group of true skeptics) who embrace anti-environmentalists, anti-communism and other isms including conservatism and free market capitalism so strongly they have been waging war on their colleagues.

I have mentioned many of them by name and others turn up frequently as the source of anti-climate change statements and arguments in articles you see daily. Fred. S Singer (a cold war rocket scientist and political flunky for Conservative Republican Governments and corporations), Lord Monckton, a Viscount who was part of the Margaret Thatcher government and who has a degree in Classics (but no scientific qualifcation), Lindzen, and a list of others which you can find in various exposés of corporate and government interferrence in science and media reporting.

This handful of old men has succeeded in convincing the media that there is doubt, controversy, and a large number of skeptics and denialists, but it is all sound and fury, signifying nothing. They have turned the media into a giant politicized echo chamber for the same sort of foolishness that you see every day in Fark threads.

3% of climatologists are skeptics or deniers. This is a level of support associated with contrarianism. You could find 3% of Jews who thought the Nazis had many fine points, including a healthy distrust of the other 97% of Jews. EVERY consensus has contrarians, some of them silent, some of them very noisy indeed. If they are noisy enough, they can sound like a multitude with drums and cymbals. This is the case with climate change.

Medical doctors are not qualified scientists. (Some research doctors are an exception, so may be some of the specialists.)

Engineers are not scientists.

Meteorologists are technically scientists and have long enjoyed a great deal of unearned authority, explaining scientific ideas to the public from television studios or the press because most TV stations don't have anybody else that is trained in any science at all except maybe a resident "expert" Doctor to comment on health and nutrition, etc.

In any case, an expert in one speciality is no expert in any other specialities, even some closely related ones.

Meteorology and climatology are relatively recent scientific disciplines. Until the 1940s they were mostly busy collecting the raw materials (data) of science rather than able to analyze and synthesize this data into theories. They were like the early naturalists of the XIXth century who made vast collections in the field or curated them in museums and universities but didn't have the key theories needed to do real science until men like Darwin, Crick and Watson and co, and others came along and gave them intellectual tools such as evolution, genetics, etc.

Modern climatology is orders of magnitude advanced over the time when today's elder meteorolgists and climatologists were trained. The rear guard is still active. These are many of the contrarians, skeptics and denialists. They may be commenting on things totally outside of their field, or clinging to lost paradigms that are now verging on crankery or have fallen into the hands of cranks because no serious scientists accept them any more.

Like it or not, Team Climate Change is the team to beat. The scientists on the bleachers may rant and road and call them bums, but the scientists on the playing field have as much chance of beating them as the Blue Jays have of winning the World Series.

You would never know this from talking to the media in certain quarters, or from talking to politicians in Congress (every other political body in the world is much more in the scientific know). But then Congress has funded homeopathy, chiropracty and other BS. Congress has believed in creationism, flat earthism, the hollow earth theory, and all sorts of crankery.

Congress can flip flop on a tight rope without droppiing its cream pies. What a bunch of clowns! What acrobatic intellectual daring! What wire-dancing! Jonathan Swift would be proud and amazed.

I've noted that medical doctors and engineers include the largest numbers of fascists and communists of any profession. I wonder if being God makes you infallible or something? Most scientists are apolitical or want to stay that way as much as possible while in their labcoats. No wonder there is conflict between the real sciences and the practical sciences. Mind you, there's as many medical quacks with degrees as without. Doctors can prescribe their own medicine--many refuse to do this, but many don't have any qualms at all. I take everything my doctor says with a certain skepticism, myself. I'm not one of those hypochondriacs who believe everything they read or their doctor says. They're service industry professionals, not gods or oracles.

Given an opinion supported by nine out of ten doctors and an opinion supported by one semi-flaky expert in the field, I have to go with the expert most of the time. Doctors do not have time to keep up on their reading in their own tiny speciality, let alone the rest of human knowledge. They may know less than the average woman in the street.
 
2012-04-24 02:05:56 PM

taurusowner: That doesn't matter. Richard Feynman's spirit could posses Stephen Hawking's body and if he said climate change might have been overstated, zealots would just dismiss him as a crippled old guy who must have his facts wrong.

It's easy to say there's consensus when you just dismiss everyone who disagrees as having an opinion that doesn't matter.


You're missing the important point. The opinion of people outside the field (even those who hold a PhD) don't hold anywhere near the same weight as either experts in that field or the evidence itself. The spliced Feynman/Hawking would still be a physicist speaking outside his field. Now, if they did their own comprehensive analysis they'd at least have something to stand on. There would still be the matter of the other hundreds and hundreds of others papers which disagree, but at least they would have more than an opinion.
 
2012-04-24 02:30:55 PM

taurusowner: You do know that Micheal Crichton was a doctor, having graduated from Harvard Medical School, right? I imagine he had a fair amount of scientician-ish knowledge.

That doesn't matter. Richard Feynman's spirit could posses Stephen Hawking's body


Did you just compare a medical doctor that believed in spoon bending, Uri Geller's psychic powers, and mystical auras to two preeminent physicists (neither of whom, incidentally, are climatologists)?
 
2012-04-24 02:31:00 PM

Baryogenesis: taurusowner: That doesn't matter. Richard Feynman's spirit could posses Stephen Hawking's body and if he said climate change might have been overstated, zealots would just dismiss him as a crippled old guy who must have his facts wrong.

It's easy to say there's consensus when you just dismiss everyone who disagrees as having an opinion that doesn't matter.

You're missing the important point. The opinion of people outside the field (even those who hold a PhD) don't hold anywhere near the same weight as either experts in that field or the evidence itself. The spliced Feynman/Hawking would still be a physicist speaking outside his field. Now, if they did their own comprehensive analysis they'd at least have something to stand on. There would still be the matter of the other hundreds and hundreds of others papers which disagree, but at least they would have more than an opinion.


Reid Bryson is Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of Environmental Studies. Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, The Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (Founding Director), the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Many climatologists regard him as the father of climatology. Professor Bryson calls manmade global warming absurd.
 
2012-04-24 02:35:57 PM

Geotpf: So, global warming in the last few years (2006 through 2012) has been less than he predicted.

What else important has happened on the last few years?

Oh yeah, a huge global recession.

What happens during a recession? Factory production is down (less pollution from the factories themselves and the power plants that power them), fewer goods are then shipped (less pollution from ships, trucks, and trains), and people drive less (if they are out of work, they aren't commuting daily or going on long vacations, therefore they make less pollution from cars).

So, with less global warming chemicals being polluted into the atmosphere, global warming slowed or stalled.

Duh.

Now that the world economy is imporving, global warming trends should increase to in lock step back to their pre-recession patterns.


sorry, but it does not work that way. There have been periods in history with very high production numbers and yet the temperatures for that period were lower than should be expected. You would think that a period when two or three hundred cities were burnt down, large fires from multiple oil refineries, tankers burning at sea, increased manufacturing, an increase in motor traffic( land, sea and air) way beyond what had been the norm would have shown an increase in temperatures but the temperature actually decreased.
 
2012-04-24 03:05:00 PM

chuckufarlie: Reid Bryson is Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of Environmental Studies. Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, The Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (Founding Director), the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Many climatologists regard him as the father of climatology. Professor Bryson calls manmade global warming absurd.


What's your opinion of Global Cooling, the theory which Reid Bryson does support?

Do you believe in global cooling? If so, why is a scientist trustworthy on that, but other scientists aren't trustworthy about global warming? Why is one scientists' theory "more" valid than hundreds of scientists competing (and proven) theories?

If you believe global cooling is a sham, why should we trust Reid Bryson to tell us about global warming, when he supports a sham theory that's diametrically opposed to it? Why would you support Reid Bryson on one aspect on the weight of his credentials, but not another?

I'll let you logically reconcile those positions and give a clear and concise answer that unique conundrum. I expect that clear and concise answer precisely never. A tantrum or obfuscation is far more likely.
 
2012-04-24 03:05:50 PM

taurusowner: That doesn't matter. Richard Feynman's spirit could posses Stephen Hawking's body and if he said climate change might have been overstated, zealots would just dismiss him as a crippled old guy who must have his facts wrong.


Except that's not even what Lovelock is saying. He's saying that his own comments (not based on peer-reviewed science) have been overstated. I know you desperately need to paint the actual climate science community with the same brush you use for this guy, which is why I take some amusement in taking that opportunity away from you.
 
2012-04-24 04:10:11 PM
As "an independent and a loner," he said he did not mind saying "All right, I made a mistake." He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding. ~ James Lovelock

Bevets:

I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists... There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. ~ Michael Crichton

thatguyoverthere70:

When you want an opinion on science, go to a scientist. When you want an opinion on science fiction, go to a science fiction writer.

dittybopper:


You do know that Micheal Crichton was a doctor, having graduated from Harvard Medical School, right? I imagine he had a fair amount of scientician-ish knowledge.

taurusowner:

That doesn't matter. Richard Feynman's spirit could posses Stephen Hawking's body and if he said climate change might have been overstated, zealots would just dismiss him as a crippled old guy who must have his facts wrong.

It's easy to say there's consensus when you just dismiss everyone who disagrees as having an opinion that doesn't matter.

"Nobody that disagrees with me is smart"

"Wow! All the smart people now agree with me! I must be right!"


You seem to be confused. thatguyoverthere70 has found a way to marginalize and/or mock someone who made an observation. The substance of the observation is therefore irrelevant. The thing you need to remember is thatguyoverthere70 has made a witty and/or caustic remark.

Nothing more to see here. Thread over.
 
2012-04-24 04:16:32 PM
How to know you're not on the side of scientific evidence in a discussion: Steve B takes your position.
 
2012-04-24 04:20:03 PM

chuckufarlie: Reid Bryson is Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of Environmental Studies. Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, The Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (Founding Director), the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Many climatologists regard him as the father of climatology. Professor Bryson calls manmade global warming absurd.


I'll be very generous and grant you one scientist. What about the dozens of others who agree with the consensus position on AGW? What about the 97% figure of publishing climatologists who support the consensus position? Why trust this one guy and not all the others? Why trust this guy and not the statements from dozens of scientific academies/societies/organizations across the globe? Why trust this guy and not the peer review, empirical data and observations of our planet (ex. melting ice) that confirm AGW?

Why is this one guy immune to whatever you think plagues those who support the consensus position?

Of course, you're not going to answer those questions honestly. You'll make up some tired excuse about global conspiracies and continue to only believe that which supports your pre-confirmed beliefs on the topic.
 
2012-04-24 04:35:58 PM

Bevets: The substance of the observation is therefore irrelevant.


There needs to be substance to begin with.

The consensus on climate change has never been used as a replacement for the strength of evidence. No, the strength of the evidence is the reason the consensus exists.
 
2012-04-24 05:29:52 PM

thatguyoverthere70: Bevets: As "an independent and a loner," he said he did not mind saying "All right, I made a mistake." He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding. ~ James Lovelock

I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists... There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. ~ Michael Crichton

When you want an opinion on science, go to a scientist. When you want an opinion on science fiction, go to a science fiction writer.


Have you asked Bevets its opinion on talking point script engines?
 
2012-04-24 05:32:06 PM
900? Just a kid, just a kid.
3.bp.blogspot.com

You wanna talk about climate change? Back when I was a kid you could still walk across the red sea.
 
2012-04-24 05:36:11 PM
In 2006, in an article in the U.K.'s Independent newspaper, he wrote that "before this century is over billions of us will die..."

Pretty sure that's gonna happen no matter what global climate does.
 
2012-04-24 06:09:17 PM
Look at this pic

1.bp.blogspot.com

Now re-read the headline
 
2012-04-24 06:21:17 PM
Lumpmoose

...How can he change his mind so abruptly after only 6 years?

The new book, due to be published next year, will be the third in a trilogy...

Ah, there it is......


How can his fans turn on him so quickly?

fta:
"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...

...
He pointed to Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" and Tim Flannery's "The Weather Makers" as other examples of "alarmist" forecasts



ahhh there it is...

Nothing gets religious fanatics in a pants-wetting-frenzy quicker than one of their leaders questioning the faith and the holy book.
 
2012-04-24 06:26:31 PM
Geotpf

So, global warming in the last few years (2006 through 2012) has been less than he predicted.

What else important has happened on the last few years?

Oh yeah, a huge global recession.


So the obama recession cured the planet.

The lengths you moon-bats go to A) excuse zero's failings and B) prop up your silly science is hilarious.

***walks away laughing "He said the recession cured global warming" hahahahahahaha --breath-- hahahahahahaha***
 
2012-04-24 07:36:39 PM

Cythraul: cman: No shiat, Sherlock

People are paranoid by nature. It is what our ancestors passed on to us as a tool of survival. Unfortunately, we also have complex thought, which is why we see threats that do not exist. That is why you see people preaching about the apocalypse, preaching that the 9/11 attacks were caused by the government, and people preaching about the end of the world due to climate change

Oh, climate change doesn't mean the end of the world. It just means the deaths of about 400 to 500 million people, if worst case scenario unfolds.


And that's worst case scenario, personally I lean towards the tilting axis theory some put forth as the reason northern africa was not always a desert.

In the grand scheme of things we just got on the planet an hour ago so to say with 100% certainty we caused all the warming is very arrogant. The earth does want it wants, we have very little control over that aspect, just hold on and hope she doesn't shake us off.
 
2012-04-24 07:57:31 PM
Bevets
Smartest
Funniest
2012-04-24 04:10:11 PM
As "an independent and a loner," he said he did
not mind saying "All right, I made a mistake." He
claimed a university or government scientist
m might fear an admission of a mistake would lead
to the loss of funding. ~ James Lovelock
Bevets:
I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's
memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon
haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased
with the impact of science. Rather than serving
as a cleansing force, science has in some
instances been seduced by the more ancient
lures of politics and publicity. Some of the
demons that haunt our world in recent years are
invented by scientists... There is no such thing
as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't
science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
~ Michael Crichton
thatguyoverthere70:
When you want an opinion on science, go to
a scientist. When you want an opinion on
science fiction, go to a science fiction
writer.
dittybopper:
You do know that Micheal Crichton was a doctor,
having graduated from Harvard Medical School,
right? I imagine he had a fair amount of
scientician-ish knowledge.
taurusowner:
That doesn't matter. Richard Feynman's spirit
could posses Stephen Hawking's body and if he
said climate change might have been overstated,
zealots would just dismiss him as a crippled old
guy who must have his facts wrong.
It's easy to say there's consensus when you just
dismiss everyone who disagrees as having an
opinion that doesn't matter.
"Nobody that disagrees with me is smart"
"Wow! All the smart people now agree with me! I
must be right!"
You seem to be confused. thatguyoverthere70
has found a way to marginalize and/or mock
someone who made an observation. The
substance of the observation is therefore
irrelevant. The thing you need to remember is
thatguyoverthere70 has made a witty and/or
caustic remark.
Nothing more to see here. Thread over.
`
Bevets, did you actually read and understand the lecture that you quote mined?
The lecture was about the dangers of allowing Politics to influence Science. The intentional misrepresentation of that lecture is Standard Bevets Bull shiat.
Nothing new to see here.
Just Bevets with his half truths and intellectual dishonesty.
Hey Bev, I've got a couple of hours to kill, want to come out and play with the big kids tonight?
 
2012-04-24 08:28:51 PM
steamingpile
Cythraul: cman: No shiat, Sherlock
People are paranoid by nature. It is what our
ancestors passed on to us as a tool of survival.
Unfortunately, we also have complex thought,
which is why we see threats that do not exist.
That is why you see people preaching about the apocalypse, preaching that the 9/11 attacks were caused by the government, and people preaching about the end of the world due to climate change
Oh, climate change doesn't mean the end of the world. It just means the deaths of about 400 to 500 million people, if worst case scenario unfolds.
And that's worst case scenario, personally I lean towards the tilting axis theory some put forth as the reason northern africa was not always a desert.
`
In the grand scheme of things we just got on the planet an hour ago so to say with 100% certainty we caused all the warming is very arrogant.
`
Okay, we got here an hour ago. Those of who choose to look around the place have found many,many things. By studying what has happened in the past we can make educated observations about what may or may not happen in the future.
And yes," so to say with 100% certainty we caused all the warming is very arrogant. "
is arrogant and asinine.
`
`
The earth does want it wants, we have very little control over that aspect, just hold on and hope she doesn't shake us off.
`
The earth is a physical manifestation of matter that has neither wants nor desires. What we do as individuals has a negligible effect on the earth as a whole. Our collective actions do have an impact on our planet.
`
And I for one will not " just hold on and hope she doesn't shake us off."
This planet was here before me and will continue to be after I am gone. During the time I'm here I'll enjoy what I can and deal with the unpleasant things as best as I am able. .
 
2012-04-24 09:22:33 PM

Boatmech: steamingpile
Cythraul: cman: No shiat, Sherlock
People are paranoid by nature. It is what our
ancestors passed on to us as a tool of survival.
Unfortunately, we also have complex thought,
which is why we see threats that do not exist.
That is why you see people preaching about the apocalypse, preaching that the 9/11 attacks were caused by the government, and people preaching about the end of the world due to climate change
Oh, climate change doesn't mean the end of the world. It just means the deaths of about 400 to 500 million people, if worst case scenario unfolds.
And that's worst case scenario, personally I lean towards the tilting axis theory some put forth as the reason northern africa was not always a desert.
`
In the grand scheme of things we just got on the planet an hour ago so to say with 100% certainty we caused all the warming is very arrogant.
`
Okay, we got here an hour ago. Those of who choose to look around the place have found many,many things. By studying what has happened in the past we can make educated observations about what may or may not happen in the future.
And yes," so to say with 100% certainty we caused all the warming is very arrogant. "
is arrogant and asinine.
`
`
The earth does want it wants, we have very little control over that aspect, just hold on and hope she doesn't shake us off.
`
The earth is a physical manifestation of matter that has neither wants nor desires. What we do as individuals has a negligible effect on the earth as a whole. Our collective actions do have an impact on our planet.
`
And I for one will not " just hold on and hope she doesn't shake us off."
This planet was here before me and will continue to be after I am gone. During the time I'm here I'll enjoy what I can and deal with the unpleasant things as best as I am able. .


You have my vote for the person who farks up the quote feature or you are top stupid to use the quote feature.

We occupy a very small footprint of the planet, and there have been higher co2 levels in the past so it can't be just us causing it, to say we are the sole source of global warming is very ego driven and dictates we have control over nature and that's just bullshiat.

It reminds me of people saying it would take decades for the oil to dissipate in the gulf and it was gone in less than a year from the beaches and is localized to the original spill. The earth takes care of itself, we will not tell her when to wipe us out, she will decide.

My biggest issues are pollution and controlling environmental impact, but we don't need to go overboard and make it impossible to run factories or not develop a piece of land because some snail may breed there once every 100 years. Or like the idiots in bama and Florida who keep forcing the man made lake in north Georgia release water even in drought conditions because it will affect sport fishing.

Moderation is the key, let's find new ways to handle trash to limit the shiat we leave after feeding our fat asses and quit dumping toxic chemicals into our lakes. Let's get that fixed first, then work on something else, saying we are fixing it all at once never works.
 
2012-04-24 09:37:29 PM

Lumpmoose:
In other words, no peer review. Does anyone listen to this guy besides the media and book publishers?


People who watch/read those things avidly. Look through any environment related thread and you'll spot them. The people raging that, unless you believe it's man made, then your willingness to help is void. The people who want Reading demolished. The people who cock-block nuclear reactors, then cock-block wind, wave and solar plants (NIMBY's).

They read and listen to his pap.

As far as it goes, I accept his... belated and largely ineffective apology. Hopefully he will seek to undo the damage he's caused.
 
2012-04-24 10:04:32 PM

Vaneshi: Lumpmoose:
In other words, no peer review. Does anyone listen to this guy besides the media and book publishers?

People who watch/read those things avidly. Look through any environment related thread and you'll spot them. The people raging that, unless you believe it's man made, then your willingness to help is void. The people who want Reading demolished. The people who cock-block nuclear reactors, then cock-block wind, wave and solar plants (NIMBY's).

They read and listen to his pap.

As far as it goes, I accept his... belated and largely ineffective apology. Hopefully he will seek to undo the damage he's caused.


Yes, one day this monster must pay the price for the damage he's done with ... that thing he said that nobody actually even knew or cared about until now that he's retracting it.

/drama queen
 
2012-04-24 11:37:45 PM
steamingpile
You have my vote for the person who farks up
the quote feature or you are top stupid to use the quote feature.
We occupy a very small footprint of the planet,
and there have been higher co2 levels in the
past so it can't be just us causing it, to say we
are the sole source of global warming is very ego driven and dictates we have control over nature and that's just bullshiat.
* redundant rant *
Moderation is the key, let's find new ways to
handle trash to limit the shiat we leave after
feeding our fat asses and quit dumping toxic
chemicals into our lakes. Let's get that fixed
first, then work on something else, saying we are fixing it all at once never works.
`
And you are too incompetent to proof read your own work.
top for too is a wonderful example of the extent of your ability to communicate in a clear and concise manner.
(SEE I can rant too!)
Now that the insults are taken care of, would you STFU for a minute and explain this to me :
`
vote for the person who farks up the quote feature
`
I've heard a lot of biatching but no one seems to be capable of actually articulating what it is that is farked up.
Either take the time to show me the problem or get over it.
 
2012-04-24 11:42:36 PM
uh, he wasn't the first alarmist

In many ways he was the first climate change denier. He said things like "don't worry about global warming--Gaia is a tough biatch"

Then he changed his mind, and said ridiculous things that he now thinks are ridiculous. He was the only one saying we were supposed to be "halfway toward a frying world" by now; everyone else is talking about 100 years from now, with 10- and 20-years forward impossible to predict.

So, in short, he's always been a waffling idiot.

Don't be shocked in 4 years when he says "ITS HAPPENING FASTER THAN WE IMAGINED" so he can make his Gaia shiat sell another round of books.
 
2012-04-25 04:34:50 AM

Cythraul: cman: No shiat, Sherlock

People are paranoid by nature. It is what our ancestors passed on to us as a tool of survival. Unfortunately, we also have complex thought, which is why we see threats that do not exist. That is why you see people preaching about the apocalypse, preaching that the 9/11 attacks were caused by the government, and people preaching about the end of the world due to climate change

Oh, climate change doesn't mean the end of the world. It just means the deaths of about 400 to 500 million people, if worst case scenario unfolds.


over how much time?

"According to the CIA World Factbook, as of July, 2005, there were approximately 6,446,131,400 people on the planet, and the death rate was approximately 8.78 deaths per 1,000 people a year. According to our nifty desktop calculator, that works out to roughly 56,597,034 people leaving us every year. That's about a 155,000 a day. "

If you have a 10 year timescale then thats just how many people die. And that is the `worst case scenario` you say.
The figure today is over 61,000,000 people dying yearly at the normal rate.

FTA "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,"

My position for a while has been to resent the overblown alarmist type of science. No, I will not believe something because you say the alternative is an afterlife in a lake of burning fire, I want to see a claim and for that claim to be shown to be true in time and for that data to improve prediction for the future. I don`t want scare stories, "400-500 million people might die" and so on with no frame of reference like a timescale. Claiming events are due to some form of AGW with nothing to prove that leads to people to say everything is caused by AGW.

Testable, repeatable, predictable. Science.

If what you predict does not happen then you are not right. It`s that simple.
 
2012-04-25 04:37:29 AM
FTA "a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding."

I`ve said this before. It`s one of the ways they evaulate future funding.
 
2012-04-25 09:30:07 AM
1. Lovelock made claims five years ago that were way beyond anything the science justified. He was mocked for it then by climate scientists.
2. He now seems to have flipped the other way, again without paying attention to what the science actually says.
3. When people make claims about science outside of the primary scientific literature, especially in fields that they do not actively publish in, you are under no obligation to treat their words with any more deference than any other person's unsupported opinion.

It's trivial to find people who may be successful in one field with wacky beliefs in another. If they had data to support those beliefs, they'd publish. They don't, so they don't.

Dr. Mojo PhD: Gee, you mean this guy's a quack?


The Gaia Hypothesis itself isn't grounds for calling someone a "quack". Daisyworld is a fundamental concept in Earth systems science, illustrating the potential interrelationship between a planet's climate and life.

The near-religious fanatical belief in which Lovelock championed it despite contrary evidence on the other hand...

dittybopper: RIght, and this guy, who was arguing for the worst case, is now saying "Wait a minute, if it *WAS* worse case, we should be a lot worse off than we are now". He's not saying that the climate isn't changing, he's saying that it's not changing as quickly as the extrapolation of the original data suggested.


He wasn't arguing "for the worst case" in terms of what the scientific evidence supports. He was arguing way, way, way beyond that. It's not surprising that things aren't happening as fast as nobody but him feared they would.

A normal person might think that means it's his own fault for departing from the mainstream, and simply shut up, or at least use it to inform his opinions. A different sort of person uses his own unjustified distortions of the mainstream to then attack the mainstream.

dittybopper: You do know that Micheal Crichton was a doctor, having graduated from Harvard Medical School, right? I imagine he had a fair amount of scientician-ish knowledge.


Michael Crichton was not a scientist. Michael Crichton never even earned his license to be a practicing physician. Michael Crichton also claimed to be able to see auras and bend spoons with his mind.

Michael Crichton isn't someone I would hold up as having a good grasp of what science actually entails.

taurusowner: That doesn't matter. Richard Feynman's spirit could posses Stephen Hawking's body and if he said climate change might have been overstated, zealots would just dismiss him as a crippled old guy who must have his facts wrong.


Unless Feynman-possessed-Hawking actually supported his words with data, everyone would be perfectly justified in dismissing him.

Geotpf: So, global warming in the last few years (2006 through 2012) has been less than he predicted.


Further evidence that he doesn't understand the climate system- the uncertainty around that short of a timespan makes it impossible to say that there has been any significant change in the longterm warming trend.

What else important has happened on the last few years?

Oh yeah, a huge global recession.

What happens during a recession? Factory production is down (less pollution from the factories themselves and the power plants that power them), fewer goods are then shipped (less pollution from ships, trucks, and trains), and people drive less (if they are out of work, they aren't commuting daily or going on long vacations, therefore they make less pollution from cars).

So, with less global warming chemicals being polluted into the atmosphere, global warming slowed or stalled.


No, this is absolutely wrong. There is a significant lag between when GHGs are emitted and their warming effect on the surface, due to the thermal inertia of the ocean. By contrast, sulfate pollution that accompanies a lot of coal burning has a much more rapid effect. Any slowdown in power plant generation would have the effect of increasing short term warming due to less sulfate pollution, followed by a slight reduction in warming much further down the line.

But of course, the global recession did not meaningfully change the amount of radiative forcing one way or the other- the brief decline in emissions was reversed, from a climate standpoint, almost instantaneously.

Christian Bale: uh, he wasn't the first alarmist

In many ways he was the first climate change denier. He said things like "don't worry about global warming--Gaia is a tough biatch"

Then he changed his mind, and said ridiculous things that he now thinks are ridiculous. He was the only one saying we were supposed to be "halfway toward a frying world" by now; everyone else is talking about 100 years from now, with 10- and 20-years forward impossible to predict.


Shhhh! You're disrupting the regularly scheduled Fark's Completely Unjustified Two Minutes Hate Against Climate Science.
 
2012-04-25 09:36:07 AM

dready zim: My position for a while has been to resent the overblown alarmist type of science. No, I will not believe something because you say the alternative is an afterlife in a lake of burning fire, I want to see a claim and for that claim to be shown to be true in time and for that data to improve prediction for the future. I don`t want scare stories, "400-500 million people might die" and so on with no frame of reference like a timescale. Claiming events are due to some form of AGW with nothing to prove that leads to people to say everything is caused by AGW.

Testable, repeatable, predictable. Science.


--
From a known climatologist in an interview:

"The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won't be there. The trees in the median strip will change." Then he said, "There will be more police cars." Why? "Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up."
--

Imagine that.

A climatologist who advocates putting TAPE across windows to protect against high winds.
SO easily disprovable.

How could you trust anything else he says?
 
2012-04-25 09:36:40 AM

dready zim: My position for a while has been to resent the overblown alarmist type of science. No, I will not believe something because you say the alternative is an afterlife in a lake of burning fire, I want to see a claim and for that claim to be shown to be true in time and for that data to improve prediction for the future. I don`t want scare stories, "400-500 million people might die" and so on with no frame of reference like a timescale. Claiming events are due to some form of AGW with nothing to prove that leads to people to say everything is caused by AGW.


What you're complaining about has nothing to do with climate science. If you want to complain about commentors on the interwebs getting the science wrong one way or the other, that's fine.

Just don't make the mistake of confusing that with what the actual field is doing.

dready zim: I`ve said this before. It`s one of the ways they evaulate future funding.


That might make sense if you were only talking about a specific individual. But we're not. We're talking about every climate-related scientific organization reaching more or less the same conclusions. Which have been vetted by the National Science Academies of the biggest science-producing nations on the planet.

Every relevant organization in the world saying "hey, we misread this, things aren't happening the way we expected them too, we need to study the problem better to find out what went wrong" is something that's going to result in receiving less funding for the specific issue in question?

You might want to think that through.
 
2012-04-25 09:42:43 AM

SVenus: From a known climatologist in an interview:


You mean from a quote taken completely out of context? About a scenario that was never meant to be a real world prediction, but rather was a thought experiment?

SVenus: A climatologist who advocates putting TAPE across windows


Advocates? As in is currently advocating this?

You're talking about an out of context quote that is over 20 years old. Do you think that it's possible that "the number 1 myth" about windows was probably a little more prevalent back then than it is today?

Besides, what does that have to do with the actual science Hansen produces? Oh, that's right. Nothing.

SVenus: How could you trust anything else he says?


We don't view people's opinions made outside of the primary scientific literature as holding the same weight as what they actually publish. Imagine that!
 
2012-04-25 10:09:47 AM

Jon Snow: SVenus: From a known climatologist in an interview:

You mean from a quote taken completely out of context? About a scenario that was never meant to be a real world prediction, but rather was a thought experiment?


Much of climatological modeling seems to also be a thought experiment.
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report