James Lovelock: Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change
March 29, 2010 - 4:23pm
In his first in-depth interview since the theft of UEA emails, the scientist blames inertia and democracy for lack of action
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock-climate-change
One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is "modern democracy", he added. "Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while."
I can't see many politicians running with this idea - Elect me so I can suspend democracy and save the planet for you lazy idiots
hmmmm.......you attempting to try and prove "the left' want a totalitarian state? or just simply baiting?
LOLOLOL
Are you really that simple?
I think he might be right but is it something a citizenry would accept without seeing and feeling an imminent danger right in front of them. Just look at the 9/11 threads - many people don't trust anything or anyone and imagine the looney theories if this was tried by a government.
you're LOL comments are not flattering to yr web persona Remind despite the high regard you have for yourself
Oh you wound me with your personal attacks, mister symbology of cutting off the "left".
and you know really analogies used to disparage people by disparaging those with mental health issues is pretty non-acceptable around here, and indeed I noted it in another thread, here is hoping the mods get a handle on this type of bigotry around here.
so I will go with the baiting.....given thepersonal attack i received over it, have you yet reread the rabble agreement you signed?
VGE, you should read more of Lovelock's earlier work, from the 80s and 90s, before you accuse others of shallowness. Lovelock believes that Homo sapiens, armed with a system of government that rewards greed first, is likely not up to saving itself. He and a neighbour, the late William (Lord of the Flies) Golding had no illusions about the capacity of our species to save itself. Mobilizing as for war is something that even Canada's Charles Taylor was not averse to brooting a few decades back. As practised in the 1940s, it did not end democracy, there were elections, but profiteering was out and corporate leaders became " $1 - a- year0-men" to head wartime production efforts. Of course, there were other economies required... :D
Thanks George - I guess my interest lies in the question -
Is a large scale uniting of the citizenry in common cause to face a threat even possible in this day and age? How would people react to rationing and other sacrifices that people experienced during the World Wars today. I feel that we are all so divided and fractured and yes paranoid, that it would be difficult to do anything unless people were literally put in the postion where they had to no choice but to go along or be made to.
Again Lovelock partly gets it. If corporations fund the denialists and corporations also fund politicians, arguably democracy has been defacto suspended quite some time ago and ceding to the corporate/political power without even the window dressing of elections accomplishes all of nothing.
If you believe that Lovelock even partly gets it, FM, the planets must indeed be in alignment. :)
Yep, choice is somewhat limited in wartime...and it could be sold to a populace that believed scientific opinion. The new enlightenment is in a bit of a race now with fundamentalists of all stripes...but it's a comin'. It would be so nice to see your (un)favourite capitalist in such dire straits, wouldn't it? Worth every minute in the Victory Garden.
My problem with Lovelock has always been that he comes so close to the big picture but then is prevented from actually seeing it due to class, privilege, and his own bias against those "beneath" him. Nothing speaks to Lovelock's myopia than his failure to detect the hole in the ozone layer. Having had the brilliance to deveop the device to detect CFCs in the atmosphere, he never looked for the consequnces of CFCs because he didn't believe there would be any.
This is exactly the case, moreover they are also funding the "big" believers and have been since they started accepting funding from Pew Charities and others of their ilk .....including direct corporate donations.
Yeah, because what we need is less democracy in a world where those suffering the worst consequences of environmental degradation have no authentic representation. And authoritarianism will enable whom exactly?
Doesn't Lovelock realize that the world is run more like the mafia than anything resembling democracy? I think what he means to say is that the cold war era promise of middle class capitalism based on consumption was a colossal lie. And it's a relatively small number of rich and powerful who are afraid of democracy not the large majority of people in the world.
This is exactly the case, moreover they are also funding the "big" believers and have been since they started accepting funding from Pew Charities and others of their ilk .....including direct corporate donations.
James Lovelock, trained physician at war's end (tropical diseases,his specialty) found himself employed by NASA to design the equipment that would analyze Martian atmosphere. His inventive brilliance earned him enough to give him an independent scientific life, and he used it to develop the now accepted Gaia theory of Earth's thermal balance. Fortunately, he had teamed up with Lynn Margulis whose brilliance in biology gave his theory the evidence needed. Both challenged mainstream science, and both overturned convention (and as FM points out, Lovelock is mortal... :D)
All Lovelock has been saying for three decades now, is that Homo sapiens, a species among millions of others, should understand what it has been doing to Earth's atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution. He's not a politician, he's just telling it like it is. He has never been dependent on corporate handouts - they go to the technicians who devise new packaging for the engineered foods being developed to counter the effects of the climate change that Lovelock has so accurately predicted.
If the Great Unread realized the enormity of catastrophic changes in life on Earth that is threatened by the increasing accumulation of greenhouse gases absorbing the sun's energy, corporate and political life would/could be swiftly brought to heel in an adjusted political economy that was based on survival, not accumulated greed. But as we see happening in the convulsive failure and weakening of economies, concern for Earth can quickly reduce to concern for individual survival in the Darwinian social world of capitalism. We must have growth, then we will contemplate the new light bulbs necessary to save the species.
To condemn Lovelock for not realizing the full potential of his device for measuring atmospheric CFC content (he put it together in his lab at home at a material cost of about $300) while the world's biologists are made to fall into line by the power of his reasoning, is nitpicking writ very large. Why not just repudiate science itself as the frightened folk chasing about for answers from Allah or Jesus are doing, relax and let a pre-Enlightenment worldview wash over us, along with the world's rising oceans, and wind up a people wailing as they wait for the salvation of a second coming?
Not sure why you wrote that long missive to me, George, on Lovelock, interesting though it is I suppose for some not knowing about him.
At any rate, was not speaking of him, when I mentioned what you quoted, was speaking of other environmental charities, especially those in Canada, who get their funding in a large part from Pew Charities, while others like Berman get their funding from for profit hydro companies.
Then of course one has to wonder about Green Peace these days, given they just hired Berman.
This is exactly the case, moreover they are also funding the "big" believers and have been since they started accepting funding from Pew Charities and others of their ilk .....including direct corporate donations.
If the Great Unread realized the enormity of catastrophic changes in life on Earth that is threatened by the increasing accumulation of greenhouse gases absorbing the sun's energy, corporate and political life would/could be swiftly brought to heel in an adjusted political economy that was based on survival, not accumulated greed. But as we see happening in the convulsive failure and weakening of economies, concern for Earth can quickly reduce to concern for individual survival in the Darwinian social world of capitalism. We must have growth, then we will contemplate the new light bulbs necessary to save the species.
As Fidel has stated the world (an aggregate of all the scales of formal politics) runs more like a mafia than a democracy. People are already coerced and forced into making certain life choices regarding consumption and living; they lack certain agency over their destiny and, most of all, the ability to make choices that are favourable to their well-being and that of the earth.
Replacing corporate execs and unscrupulous politicians with scientists is not going to empower humans and make them responsible for the environment.
Your plan for social change has the smell of surrender, j.m. Won't do that, myself.
Not sure why you wrote that long missive to me, George, on Lovelock, interesting though it is I suppose for some not knowing about him.
At any rate, was not speaking of him, when I mentioned what you quoted, was speaking of other environmental charities, especially those in Canada, who get their funding in a large part from Pew Charities, while others like Berman get their funding from for profit hydro companies.
Then of course one has to wonder about Green Peace these days, given they just hired Berman.
Just seemed to me, remind, that when you agreed with FM, our in-house environmental fatalist, on the question of "environmental" agencies, that a postive, albeit naive note should be left out there in the ether. :D
ahhh, no problem naivety, means there is always 'hope'. And that hope that humanity has has has brought us far and vanquished many an enemy.
from the comments:
I don't agree that Democracy is the problem. Actually I think it is a lack of real democracy that is part of the problem. We need a democracy that encourages active involvement of all citizens rather than making cynics of us all by this only just representative democracy that is corrupted by the need for large corporate financing of political parties and the need to return favours. So I am not at all in favour of giving up even the limited democracy we have but instead think we should be fighting for more.
I think the corporatocracy has worked diligently over the last 30 years to convince people that their corporate hirelings in government can't run things worth a darn. And I believe the power elite do have an alternative system of government in mind all warmed up and ready on deck. Observe the democratic capitalist thirdworld.
so, we go with Lovelock's assertion that the world is doomed if we don't embrace nuclear power, and his current assertion that democracy is an impediment to saving the planet....and presto! we have nuclear armed eco-dictatorships! awesome...where do i sign up?
I will confess that I probably need to read more of Lovelock's works. Having noted that first of all, there are plenty of people able to point to social problems without being able to put forward coherent solutions to those problems. Lovelock sounds like a member of that very large club.
To condemn Lovelock for not realizing the full potential of his device for measuring atmospheric CFC content (he put it together in his lab at home at a material cost of about $300) while the world's biologists are made to fall into line by the power of his reasoning, is nitpicking writ very large. Why not just repudiate science itself as the frightened folk chasing about for answers from Allah or Jesus are doing, relax and let a pre-Enlightenment worldview wash over us, along with the world's rising oceans, and wind up a people wailing as they wait for the salvation of a second coming?
George, sometimes you're just full of shit. Lovelock did not look for any harm being caused by CFCs because he did not believe CFCs could cause any harm. A scientist always keeps an open mind. Lovelock's has been closed to any criticism or potential harm of industrial chemistry and his work which included developing products for many of those industries that have been enriched poisoning the earth and, yes, contributing to its warming.
He is critical of and dismissive of Rachel Carson, in particular, and all environmentalists in general. He is dismissive of the great harm caused by Chernobyl and is blind to the victims of that tragedy. He dismisses the critical role of biodiversity in maintaining and contributing to life on the planet. He is an apologist and friend of the nuclear energy.
To say he has never been dependent on industry is absurd. He did not earn his wealth and very comfortable living tinkering in his basement. Don't forget, George, I read Lovelock. He is a man of privilege who has refused to acknowledge his own role and that of his class and his generation for the state we are in. Today I watched him on YouTube saying "we didn't mean to warm the planet". We have known since the 70s that we were warming the planet. We did mean to warm the planet at least since the time we first became aware of it and placed corporate profit ahead of planetary health. And I'd bet if 40 years ago anyone had told Lovelock that the industrial world to which he was so committed was warming the climate just as CFCs was creating a hole in ozone, he would have said "hogwash" and would never have looked because he already knew the answer.
Grrrrrr....
To test this hypothesis, in 1971 he took his machine on a research vessel bound for the Antarctic. He discovered the pollutant everywhere, and within a few years the data he collected were being investigated by researchers interested in the destruction of the ozone layer. Strangely, Lovelock initially dismissed the idea that CFCs could be responsible for the ozone damage, and appeared as chief scientific witness during US Senate hearings for Du Pont, the main manufacturer of the offending chemicals. Because he presented an objective view of the science as it was known at the time, Lovelock claims that he could as well have appeared for the other side, if only they had asked him.
The New York Review of Books
Who is asking him about nuclear today?
Of course his inventions gave him the independence to carry out the research that was a breakthrough in the until then tight-assed world of biology and the earth sciences...each in their place, mustn't muddy the waters you know.
I knew after reading his Ages of Gaia in the early 80s that our species was in for a rough ride...that is why I was prompted to be one of the founders of the Green Party of Ontario. And of course he admits to being of the generation that brought us to this perilous point, but that does not take away from his very rasoned, scientific approach to solutions. You want to carry on your little, moralizing attacks while the biosphere packs it in and yet offer nothing in exchange.
As a member of the first pollution probe in Ontario, organized and working in the winter of 69-70, I can tell you that the concerns for our impact on the planet back then were for poisoning of the land and water...atmospheric concerns were muted because Lobelock was still formulating the theory by which biology enters the picture of thermal changes from greenhouse gases. If you were reading something in the 70s it must have come to you by osmosis, since it certainly was not public knowledge. He has said many times that he is sorry that the green movement is alienated from him because of his pro-nuclear stance, but the idea of going down in flames seems to appeal to the opponents of nuclear, despite its clearly positive effect in hundreds of stations in countries that would otherwise burn coal.
The only reason you hear of him is because he offers the most coherent explanation of what is happening and what must be done. The government of the U.K is already forming policy based on his science. But please, until you actually formulate and propose alternative remedial action, be less inventive in your venemous, anal carping That's a good chap.
Once the full effects of runaway GHGs and/or collapsing ecosystems start collapsing our social systems sometime off in the future, eco-fascism will definately emerge, I think. As elites attempt in vain to maintain any status they presume to have, and use the premise of last-ditch ecological salvation to maintain control over dwindling key resources for their own ends. Watch for them to use that seminal old crank Lovelock, and talk of Gaia and everything to make sure everyday people get excluded in any of the decision making process.
Who knows for sure though? Just an ongoing neurosis I've got going on, and now Lovelock is espousing what I dread...
Grrrrrr....
To test this hypothesis, in 1971 he took his machine on a research vessel bound for the Antarctic. He discovered the pollutant everywhere, and within a few years the data he collected were being investigated by researchers interested in the destruction of the ozone layer. Strangely, Lovelock initially dismissed the idea that CFCs could be responsible for the ozone damage, and appeared as chief scientific witness during US Senate hearings for Du Pont, the main manufacturer of the offending chemicals. Because he presented an objective view of the science as it was known at the time, Lovelock claims that he could as well have appeared for the other side, if only they had asked him.
The New York Review of Books
Who is asking him about nuclear today?
That's how science works. His view of the question excluded CFCs as a factor because his methodology and initial theorizing caused him to miss it. But you know, only in the days of Cromwell did folks dig up the mortal remains and condemn them to the rubbish heap. Lovelock has, of course, said that he was wrong. And he has invited all of science to prove he and Margulis wrong in their Gaia formulation. Safe so far. But, then, you do look for perfection in all things, eh? And will not doubt winkle out further facts proving his perfidy.
You are tiring in your apologisia and condenscension, George. I have never demanded perfection, but there appears no compromise for you too low to crawl under. It wasn't "science" that precluded an investigation into impacts of CFCs which were "everywhere" but a "belief" a "faith" that didn't require him to look further. Did you read that article, George? Another exerpt from your latest Messiah figure:
One of the strongest impressions one gets from The Vanishing Face of Gaia is that Lovelock disagrees with almost everyone. But it is the green movement that evokes his most piquant criticism. He sees Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, a book that is often cited as starting the modern environmental movement, giving birth to what he calls a "narrow restrictive faith" that pushes "a partisan and contentious political cause, which at best was no more than a partial expression of the humanism of Christianity or Socialism, and at worst an anarchic extremism." Indeed in places he goes further: "Now we have the urban environmentally friendly ideology, perhaps the most deadly of them all." Yet for all this, there's no overt criticism of the deceit of the coal and oil industries, which continue to pollute unabated.
Lovelock is often described as a 'green' scientist, largely because of the Gaia hypothesis - even though he is a long-standing supporter of nuclear power. He is also regularly described as 'independent' because he is not formally employed by any government, company or organisation. However, 'freelance' would be a more accurate description, as he has worked for big business and the security services since he went 'independent'.
In 1973 Lovelock published the results of his work on CFCs in the scientific journal Nature. He concluded about CFCs that "the presence of these compounds constitutes no conceivable hazard".
Lovelock also admits in Homage to Gaia that one of the instruments he designed, to monitor the movement of cattle as they grazed, 'led me to participate in the removal of hedgerows - one of the most destructive changes that happened to the English Countryside after the Second World War. I regret to say I played a small part in this act of national ecocide I loved the English country scene passionately, yet I was as thoughtlessly responsible for its destruction as was a greedy shareholder of an agribusiness firm, or a landowner out to maximize the return from his broad hectares."
Lovelock denies that Chernobyl has caused massive human health impacts. He maintains a position that there were only 45 deaths ...
A recent report by leading scientists and researchers commissioned by European parliamentary groups, Greenpeace International and medical foundations in Britain, Germany, Ukraine, Scandinavia and other countries suggests that the number of casualties may have bee far higher: "At least 500,000 people - perhaps more - have already died out of the 2 million people who were officially classed as victims of Chernobyl in Ukraine".
Contrary to the 2004 media coverage, Lovelock has long been an advocate of nuclear power - he has been on record as a supporter of nuclear power for 20 years ... Contrary to public perception Lovelock has long-standing ties to the nuclear industry and its supporters .. He is a Patron of Supporters of Nuclear Energy, whose Secretary is Sir Bernard Ingham ... He was also awarded a medal by the nuclear power company British Energy in November 2006, "in recognition of his major contributions to the fields of medicine, biology, instrument science, and geophysiology".
Lovelock started working for Shell in 1963, having regular monthly meetings with the Shell boss Lord Rothschild. He states in Homage to Gaia: 'My experiences with Shell left me firmly with the impression that they are neither stupid nor villains. On the contrary I know of no other human agency that plans as far ahead or considers the environment more closely'.
'During my years with the Security Services I developed an instinct for discretion. This was invaluable in my work with multinational companies and other government agencies, where I discovered much more about their workings than I needed to know'.
Lovelock was also one of the original signatories of the 'Declaration in Support of Protecting Nature With High-yield Farming and Forestry.' Other signatories are Patrick Moore, the ex-Greenpeace founder and now Greenpeace's bete noir, who runs an anti-environmantal PR company called Greenspirit Strategies, Dennis Avery of the Centre for Global Food Issues which is part of to the right-wing Hudson Institute and Eugene Lapointe one of the leaders of the international 'Wise Use Movement' and World Conservation Trust Foundation /IWMC World Conservation Trust and Norman Boulag, a rabidly pro-GM scientist.[23]
Dennis Avery is one of the main people behind many of the attacks on organic food and author of the inspirationally-titled Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic: The Environmental Triumph of High-Yield Farming. Avery sees himself as a missionary, promoting the high-tech farming industries: pesticides, irradiation, factory farming, and the newcomer: biotechnology.[24][25]
Avery is behind misleading claims that organic food is dangerous and is the originator of the 'E. Coli myth' - that people eating organic foods are at a significantly higher risk of food poisoning. He calls organic food a 'gigantic marketing lie'.[25]
Eugene Lapointe runs the organisation the International Wildlife Management Consortium, a coalition of international hunting, shooting, whaling, right-wing and wise use organisations.[26]
Other signatories include Bruce Ames, the controversial cancer scientist on the board of climate-sceptic Fred Singer's SEPP and a Director of the George C Marshall Institute and academic advisor to the Reason Foundation, and Klaus Amman, a vehemently pro-GM scientist.
Sourcewatch
He just wants Homo sapiens to stop burning coal, to not buy the damned stuff . That would affect them more than your sermons.(Not as satisfying as long, knicker knotting condemnation of the industry? What's wrong with his saying "Don't burn the stuff"? If the people he's addressing acted on his recommendations, it would have some effect on the industries, close them down, even.
"Anarchic extremism" would be a bit over the top in describing your position, FM :D ...but I see you have found a critic of science right up your moralizing alley. Gaia be with you.
I take that back, FM. Looking at your last foraging expedition across the web, you personify the element who misuse the medium. Lovelock and Margulis are not attacked by mainstream science in this way. You collect second-hand critics like the motley crew that can be found to criticize science itself.
Set aside your motley crew for a moment and tell me what is wrong with his science.
Lovelock's stance on democracy is science-based?
From today's Guardian:
Monday, March 29, 2010James Lovelock on the value of sceptics and why Copenhagen was doomed | Environment | guardian.co.uk
I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done....
Careers have been ended by this affair and the reputation of the institution [CRU] will go down for a while. It's sad because there are some good people there. They have to clean their house if they know people are behaving badly. They have got a rotten job ahead, but it will blow over in a few years.
...
We're very tribal. You're either a goodie or a baddie. I've got quite a few friends among the sceptics, as well as among the "angels" of climate science. I've got more angels as friends than sceptics, I have to say, but there are some sceptics that I fully respect. Nigel Lawson is one... I wouldn't put it past the Russians to be behind some of the disinformation to help further their energy interests. But you need sceptics especially when the science gets very big and monolithic.
I respect their right to be sceptics. Nigel Lawson is an easy person to talk to. He's more like a defence counsel for the sceptics than a right-winger banging the drum. His book is not a diatribe or polemic. He tries to reason his case.
...
The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they're scared stiff of the fact that they don't really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven't got the physics worked out yet. One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models, but he said they hadn't got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 50 years from now? They've employed scientists to tell them what they want to hear. The Germans and the Danes are making a fortune out of renewable energy. I'm puzzled why politicians are not a bit more pragmatic about all this.
We do need scepticism about the predictions about what will happen to the climate in 50 years, or whatever. It's almost naive, scientifically speaking, to think we can give relatively accurate predictions for future climate. There are so many unknowns that it's wrong to do it.
...
Copenhagen was doomed to fail. But I think it was worth their while trying. A lot of people put their hearts into it. But I've never felt entirely happy with that sort of environmental wing-ding. It's obscene to have 10,000 people flying to Bali or whatever to talk about the environment. It just shows how hopeless humans are.
...
We shouldn't let the lobbies influence science. Whatever criticism might befall the IPCC and the UEA, they're nothing as bad as lobbyists who are politically motivated and who will manipulate data or select data to make their political point. For example, it's deplorable for the BBC whenever one of these issues comes up to go and ask what one of the green lobbyists thinks of it. Sometimes their view might be quite right, but it might also be pure propaganda. This is wrong.
...
[Lovelock on what it will take to convince the public that meaningful action is required to tackle climate change]:
There has been a lot of speculation that a very large glacier [Pine Island glacier] in Antarctica is unstable. If there's much more melting, it may break off and slip into the ocean. It would be enough to produce an immediate sea-level rise of two metres, something huge, and tsunamis. I would say the scientists are not worried about it, but they are keeping a close watch on it. That would be the sort of event that would change public opinion.
...
I don't know enough about carbon trading, but I suspect that it is basically a scam. The whole thing is not very sensible. We have this crazy idea that we are setting an example to the world. What we're doing is trying to make money out of the world by selling them renewable gadgetry and green ideas. It might be worthy from the national interest, but it is moonshine if you think what the Chinese and Indians are doing [in terms of emissions]. The inertia of humans is so huge that you can't really do anything meaningful.
[Lovelock on the surveys showing that public trust with climate science is eroding]:
I think the public are right. That's why I'm soft on the sceptics. Science has got overblown. From the moment Harold Wilson brought in that stuff about the "white heat of technology", science, in Britain at least, has gone down the drain. Science was always elitist and has to be elitist. The very idea of diluting it down [to be more egalitarian] is crazy. We're paying the price for it now.
Posted by Tom at 1:35 PM
Not bad for a 90 year old. Looks like his evaluation of CFCs impact was dependent on the bad scientific information he had to rely on - and perhaps the lying bastards you quote to demean him, FM> Go figure. Doesn't get any more optimistic in his old age, does he? But maybe he's wrong (and no, please, no more "evidence" of his failure, FM That's not science, doncha know?)
Lovelock's stance on democracy is science-based?
He doesn't have a stance on politics, but he sure as shucks would not for a moment feel comfortable about teabaggers having a hand on science's purse strings.
"Copenhagen was doomed to fail. But I think it was worth their while trying. A lot of people put their hearts into it. But I've never felt entirely happy with that sort of environmental wing-ding. It's obscene to have 10,000 people flying to Bali or whatever to talk about the environment. It just shows how hopeless humans are."
He almost has trouble being consistent in a single answer these days. But he's always available to the media himself, as much as any other British 'green' that he chastises for propagandizing. (having trouble with the quote html so I just italicized).
I don't know. When he he say's he has a feeling CC is such a terrible issue that democracy should be frozen to tackle it at some point that's fairly a political statement. What in his mind does that advocate for? You mentioned during the war corporate salaries being frozen, and victory gardens, a la a WWII response, but that has nothing to do with democracy being frozen. FMs point that he is as much an advocate for certain corporate affiliations as a scientist, makes me wonder what and who he envisions filling the void?
Sourcewatch, which you would malign while identifying yourself with a fraud who can so easily dismiss the tragedy and victims of Chernobyl, is one of the most respected sources of information on the Internet, George. I have just lost my respect for you. It seems you would rather crawl up the ass of fake than keep your eyes open for false prophets while maintaining friendships even if only virtual.
I've nothing more to say to you.
Lovelock's ideas are as interesting in some respects as they are backwards.
I suspect that democracy would serve to help the environment-- now if I could find it anywhere I might be able to prove my point.
Perhaps the real problem is that the inequality of people allows those with more power to preserve it such that democracy is an impossible ideal.
The best we can do is come as close as we can. To start we need to be most critical of those systems that claim to be democratic but aren't as they are more in the way of evolution to something democratic than those who do not make such claims.
If we accept the principle that choice must be informed and that power must be equal I wonder if democracy can really ever happen anywhere except in the smallest of closed systems.
It then follows that you cannot suspend what you do not have.
There you go, all anal and agitated again, FM. You have nothing to say on the revelation about the effect of bad science at the time of the ozone hole controversy? Oh, forgot, mustn't meddle with the virtuous in their moral ascendancy.
Holier than thou, by the way, is saying that others were not concerned with the terrible effects of Chernobyl. You condemn Lovelock for his superior tone, but he is no match for your image of self.
Well put, Sean.
There you go, all anal and agitated again, FM. You have nothing to say on the revelation about the effect of bad science at the time of the ozone hole controversy? Oh, forgot, mustn't meddle with the virtuous in their moral ascendancy.
Holier than thou, by the way, is saying that others were not concerned with the terrible effects of Chernobyl. You condemn Lovelock for his superior tone, but he is no match for your image of self.
It was HIS bad science you dope. He invented the device to detect the CFCs. He was the one who recognized CFCs everywhere. He is the one who reported CFCs as being prevalent. He made the bad scientific finding, based on no evidence but his own belief, that CFCs were of "no conceivable hazard".
Jesus! Are you truly this obtuse? Now leave me alone.
Thanks George - I guess my interest lies in the question -
Is a large scale uniting of the citizenry in common cause to face a threat even possible in this day and age? How would people react to rationing and other sacrifices that people experienced during the World Wars today. I feel that we are all so divided and fractured and yes paranoid, that it would be difficult to do anything unless people were literally put in the postion where they had to no choice but to go along or be made to.
You may be right in that individualism is a far stronger force today than in the pre-war period. Social classes were clearly defined, and in the U.S., dollar differences brought deference (money talked). As you'll see in the Lovelock interviews by the Guardian, he suggested that slippage of a large glacier in Antarctica causing an immediate rise of two metres in ocean levels, might bring serious attentiion to the idea of mobilization. The poor editorial page editor of the Waterloo Region Record bounced that idea off his readers when environmental concerns were peaking (just before giving way to economic concerns) and was pounced on by several readers...not openly on the editorial page, mind you, but covertly, by phone and e-mail.
I suspect there will be no action until the average burger's ox has also been gored, not just those like Australia where desertification sems to be a done deal for most of its surface. In fact, folks there might be ready for anything at this point. But then they've just agreed to keep China in coal for a bit...20 years I think the contract runs...
There you go, all anal and agitated again, FM. You have nothing to say on the revelation about the effect of bad science at the time of the ozone hole controversy? Oh, forgot, mustn't meddle with the virtuous in their moral ascendancy.
Holier than thou, by the way, is saying that others were not concerned with the terrible effects of Chernobyl. You condemn Lovelock for his superior tone, but he is no match for your image of self.
[/quote
It was HIS bad science you dope. He invented the device to detect the CFCs. He was the one who recognized CFCs everywhere. He is the one who reported CFCs as being prevalent. He made the bad scientific finding, based on no evidence but his own belief, that CFCs were of "no conceivable hazard".
Jesus! Are you truly this obtuse? Now leave me alone.
He depended on others who had the means to advise him about activity in the ozone holes themselves. He based his conclusion on their bad science. You have just read, above, that they let him down. But, somehow, your hatred for the old fellow does not allow you to accept his word on it. You have to follow up the notoriously dependable sources of the IT world.
Leave you alone? Please stop following up the Lovelock trail. Take a vacation.
You know, Lovelock is not exactly in a position now, nor will he likely have a future carrying the torch - let alone implement - such a project.
Further, Lovelock is not an expert on politics whatsoever, yet like so many experts he uses his prestige to delve into areas that he has no expertise in.
My problem with Lovelock is that he perpetuates elitism with statements that humans are too stupid. I have a huge problem with Lovelock wanting to protect the world from those who live in it by falsely arguing that we have "too much democracy". The world doesn't operate as a democracy but as a failed modernist and free-market experiment. I would hope that the real experts -the people living in this world- would be asked how they a healthy world should be organized.
Sometimes I wonder if the Great Unread isn't a huge fucking mirror in front of GV. Do you just read Bageant over and over?
You know, Lovelock is not exactly in a position now, nor will he likely have a future carrying the torch - let alone implement - such a project.
Further, Lovelock is not an expert on politics whatsoever, yet like so many experts he uses his prestige to delve into areas that he has no expertise in.
My problem with Lovelock is that he perpetuates elitism with statements that humans are too stupid. I have a huge problem with Lovelock wanting to protect the world from those who live in it by falsely arguing that we have "too much democracy". The world doesn't operate as a democracy but as a failed modernist and free-market experiment. I would hope that the real experts -the people living in this world- would be asked how they a healthy world should be organized.
Look around, j.m. What is healthy about either the biosphere or our political systems? Journalists ask him questions, and that's what he says, essentially. Look around. If you aren't into atmospheric science - like 99.99 percent of the population, you may just be depending on Jesus to stop the buildup of greenhouse gases? And you ask the "real experts - the people living in this world...(how) a healthy world should be organized." You jest.
Sometimes I wonder if the Great Unread isn't a huge fucking mirror in front of GV. Do you just read Bageant over and over?
If you ever encounter a large mirror in the bedroom of your hotel, you'll know you've found one of those. You could use a vacation as well, RP. Bageant has found himself a nice little watering hole in Mexico where he is having FUN describing Canadian and U.S. retirees tottering about in the sun, smoking it up, and generally being old-fartish. Such places let you get rid of the anger and venom. Restore balance.
You know, Lovelock is not exactly in a position now, nor will he likely have a future carrying the torch - let alone implement - such a project.
Further, Lovelock is not an expert on politics whatsoever, yet like so many experts he uses his prestige to delve into areas that he has no expertise in.
My problem with Lovelock is that he perpetuates elitism with statements that humans are too stupid. I have a huge problem with Lovelock wanting to protect the world from those who live in it by falsely arguing that we have "too much democracy". The world doesn't operate as a democracy but as a failed modernist and free-market experiment. I would hope that the real experts -the people living in this world- would be asked how they a healthy world should be organized.
Look around, j.m. What is healthy about either the biosphere or our political systems? Journalists ask him questions, and that's what he says, essentially. Look around. If you aren't into atmospheric science - like 99.99 percent of the population, you may just be depending on Jesus to stop the buildup of greenhouse gases? And you ask the "real experts - the people living in this world...(how) a healthy world should be organized." You jest.
I don't think insinuating that I, like all but 7 000 000 people in this world, believe only God will save us is a good, rational argument for my position. Funny, but non-believing capitalists believe in the saviour - the science of the market - too. I think you'll admit that this area of science has really fucked us up, and there is no God to blame there (perhaps just Godlike figures, human and non-human). Like Lovelock you hold disdain for human beings and their capacities. I would rather see an order that enables people to make choices beyond what they buy and what they believe that enables them to use knowledge of their local environments to both satisfy their needs and protect their communities. I agree that scientists and environmentalists are necessary for social and environmental transformation, but if you think that only the elite can solve this problem through fascist policies then you are mistaken. People will not stand for eco-fascism, and those already resistant to environmentalism will not play along.
If this is what you believe, then it is likely that you and George Lovelock are going to need a lot of bullets.
If you've read Lovelock, you'll know he's not into politics at all. But if you visit coastal areas over the next few years, take your waders. When he speaks about changing our ways, he often says we must do that to "protect civilization". You know, the social conditions that exist under orderly, participatory government And believe me, for that old boy, civilized society does not contain guns. Pick up a copy of Ages of Gaia. A very interesting scientific explanation of Earth's progress to a habitable world with the aid of its biota - and its current decline. There's not a whisker of politics though. That's for the excited imagination to create.
Good grief, more fostering of stark extremes....
More like the fostering of stark stupidity...
There you go, all anal and agitated again, FM. You have nothing to say on the revelation about the effect of bad science at the time of the ozone hole controversy? Oh, forgot, mustn't meddle with the virtuous in their moral ascendancy.
Holier than thou, by the way, is saying that others were not concerned with the terrible effects of Chernobyl. You condemn Lovelock for his superior tone, but he is no match for your image of self.
It was HIS bad science you dope. He invented the device to detect the CFCs. He was the one who recognized CFCs everywhere. He is the one who reported CFCs as being prevalent. He made the bad scientific finding, based on no evidence but his own belief, that CFCs were of "no conceivable hazard".
Jesus! Are you truly this obtuse? Now leave me alone.
Actually it wasn't just his belief or bad science. I give Lovelock credit for showing that CFCs are pervasive and do not break down in the troposhpere. That lead to Rowland and Molina's work in the early '70s that they were eventually awarded the Noble prize for (shared with Cruzen). I have no idea what Lovelock is talking about when he is comparing the science of ozone depletion to the science of climate change, as his opinion does not seem to be based on anything concrete about either, especially given the investigations that have exonerated Jones and Mann. The "ozone hole" over the Antarctic wasn't recognized until the mid '80s, so there was still some question prior to then as to how serious the problem was. I don't know when he testified at Senate hearings.
His comments about the state of climate science are ridiculous. There are uncertainties about the impact of clouds and aerosols, but I don't think that they would give climatologists nightmares, unlike say methane clathrates.
His concern is for the state of science, its accuracy, in making the comparison. That's it. But of course, his public statement to the Guardian was not elicited by a question, that I can see. He simply recalled the state of science at the time when his chemical equations - see his work in the Ages of Gaia - would have been thrown for a loop with bad input . Of course, you might suggest that he is only exposing himself to the comments of learned souls like yourselves because he is into his dotage. I'll just suggest that he offered the comparison because he is an honest scientist, and he has always been, for some, disturbingly unconcerned about the wild guesswork of what he calls the well-meaning but ideologically driven critics.
Clearly, his many awards from a grateful scientific world can only be a result of his duplicity and ability to pull the wool over their eyes.
What hubristic nonsense, chaps.
Actually it wasn't just his belief or bad science. I give Lovelock credit for showing that CFCs are pervasive and do not break down in the troposhpere. That lead to Rowland and Molina's work in the early '70s that they were eventually awarded the Noble prize for (shared with Cruzen). I have no idea what Lovelock is talking about when he is comparing the science of ozone depletion to the science of climate change, as his opinion does not seem to be based on anything concrete about either, especially given the investigations that have exonerated Jones and Mann. The "ozone hole" over the Antarctic wasn't recognized until the mid '80s, so there was still some question prior to then as to how serious the problem was. I don't know when he testified at Senate hearings.
His comments about the state of climate science are ridiculous. There are uncertainties about the impact of clouds and aerosols, but I don't think that they would give climatologists nightmares, unlike say methane clathrates.
It wasn't just, but that was certainly a big part of it. Look, if you were a scientist, who developed an instrument to detect CFCs in the atmosphere, found them plentiful, and then embarked on a partially self-funded mission to Antarctica, and again found them in abundance, would you conclude, "oh, no big deal," or would you wonder, "what is the impact?"
And it is not just on that question. Lovelock's history is replete with the sorts of unfounded, kneejerk judgments that are anathema to good science (revisionism notwithstanding) which requires a mind that is always open. And, of course, it is not just there. I'm not sure in which of the linked articles above you will find it, but Lovelock informs us the UN was founded to dissemble the British Empire. Once you get past the absurdity of that rather nationalistic conspiracy theory, your next question might be, but why would he want to preserve the British Empire, founded on violence and colonialism? Perhaps because, as befitting his class, he supports the idea of Empire and the British Empire in particular.
There is another quote, not linked above, where he glorifies war-what a great time it was. For him. The many victims might disagree.
I don't dispute Lovelock can be brilliant. But for those easily given to hero worship and quick to drink from the kool aid, he is a poor choice of messiah. There are great thinkers out there who believe we can change the world, who believe a fate of catastrophic climate change need not be inevitable, who believe social justice, environmental justice, and truth are not alien to one another. Lovelock is not one of those people.
Lovelock is a schill for industry, nuclear power, what was and what shall never be again. He is a living fossil. He has a long record of being wrong and fully intends to extend it to his last living breath.
I am a fatalist. But I believe that comes from not believing in a silver bullet nor techno fixes nor fairy dust. I believe the end of hope is not necessarily despair, but action. Lovelock preaches a message of inevitable destruction. He dismisses renewables, dismisses the harm of nuclear and the souls of the Chernobyl dead, and offers a faustian bargain: "Yes, hell is your future but the path there can be well lit and warmed with cheap, plentiful nuclear energy". I reject his deal with the devil. I reject his claim to the credentials of those he despises, environmentalists. And I reject his alliance with an industry that would gladly pave the road to the hell he would have us travel.
I would rather go down fighting in the dark and cold than sit in the cold comfort of Lovelock's dystopian future of nonchalantly pushing the sick and drowning from the lifeboat HMS Great Britain.
I was just giving credit where credit was due. Luckily for us, following up on his discovery about CFCs in the troposphere was done by other scientists, and I don't think he can be blamed for the fact that the ozone hole wasn't detected earlier. I agree that he is rather looney and hypocritical.
You folks have only read the press releases of his critics. You have turned him upside down, FM, and like Pw, I suspect you are animated largely by his support of nuclear as an alternative to burning fossil fuels in an attempt to save the lifestyle which, I'm sure, you all enjoy, without apology - but which you pretend to believe can be preserved by wind and sun on a deadly calm January night, in this northern latitude.
The hypocricy is yours, Pw, until you can make as honest an attempt as Lovelock does to explain to us how we can find our way gradually into that future period when only a billiion of our species lives a sustainaable lifestyle on a planet that Lovelock says we have made very ill (he was trained first as a medical scientist, and his writing is full of medical analogies). Your science undoubtedly will tell us that our saviour is hatching in the mind of someone at the Perimeter Institute, here in the valley of the Grand.Sure hope it hatches any day now - before the icewater reaches the incubator. But that's just Waiting for Godot, the public theatre fed as a sop to the peasantry to replace the pre-Darwinian dependence on a Maker.
But carry on with your attack. The scientific community out there is waiting with bated breath for the next instalment of your alternative visions.
Actually, a seasonal reduction in stratospheric ozone over Antarctica was first detected in the 1960s and an increase in that seasonal decline was observed in the late 1970s. In the early 1980s Nimbus 7 satellite data confirmed what has come to be described as the ozone hole, but the satellite data was at first deemed to be too far outside what was expected and dismissed as outlying error. it took long-term ground reading data using an ancient Dobson Ozone Spectrophoto Meter published in 1984 by Farman, Gardiner, and Shanklin of the British Antarctic Survey to convince the scientific community that the satellite data was correct.
In the closing paragraphs of the chapter, "The Contemporary Environment" in the 1988 edition of The Ages of Gaia, Lovelock writes: "It may turn out that I was very wrong to have opposed those who sought instant legislation to stop the emission of CFCs. I regard the strange phenomenon over the south polar regions as a warning of other more serious surprises yet to come. It seems possible that other changes, including the concomitant increase of CO2 and methane from hman industry and agriculture, are responsible for the extra effect of chlorine compounds in polar regions, but there is little doubt in my mind that without the chlorine from industrial gases there would be no thinning of the ozone layer at the South Pole. The CFCs and other industrial halocarbons have increased by 500 percent since I first measured them in 1971 (ed. in parts per trillion). They were harmless then, but now there is too much halocarbon gas in the air. The first symptoms of poisoning are now felt. I now (ed. 1988) join with those who would regulate the emissions of the CFCs and other carriers of chlorine to the stratosphere.
"To return to our clinical analogy...Could fears about the CFCs and the ozone layer have presaged discovery of the ozone hole and the climate-threatening greenhouse effect of CFCs?"
Not a bad mia culpa...but quite wasted on the anti-nuclear-at-any-cost "scientists" out there, even as polar ice goes by the board.
You folks have only read the press releases of his critics. You have turned him upside down, FM, and like Pw, I suspect you are animated largely by his support of nuclear as an alternative to burning fossil fuels in an attempt to save the lifestyle which, I'm sure, you all enjoy, without apology - but which you pretend to believe can be preserved by wind and sun on a deadly calm January night, in this northern latitude.
The hypocricy is yours, Pw, until you can make as honest an attempt as Lovelock does to explain to us how we can find our way gradually into that future period when only a billiion of our species lives a sustainaable lifestyle on a planet that Lovelock says we have made very ill (he was trained first as a medical scientist, and his writing is full of medical analogies). Your science undoubtedly will tell us that our saviour is hatching in the mind of someone at the Perimeter Institute, here in the valley of the Grand.Sure hope it hatches any day now - before the icewater reaches the incubator. But that's just Waiting for Godot, the public theatre fed as a sop to the peasantry to replace the pre-Darwinian dependence on a Maker.
But carry on with your attack. The scientific community out there is waiting with bated breath for the next instalment of your alternative visions.
You're the one who posted the Guardian quotes aren't you? I happen to have read Lovelock's books too, and don't dismiss everything he writes because of his views on nuclear energy or anything else. It seems to me there is more than enough hypocrisy to go around. You don't seem to have done much constructive yourself except attack other people, but then I know very little about you and vice-versa. I don't have to come up with all of the ideas and neither does Lovelock. There are studies by people like the Pembina Institute that have shown that both Alberta and Ontario could transition to a far more sustainable energy regime (and thus economy) while significantly reducing reliance on (or not relying on) coal and nuclear. I think there are very good economic, social, and environmental reasons for opposing nuclear power expansion in favour of renewable energy and conservation, but don't dismiss the counter-arguments automatically.
And why do you suppose I "posted the Guardian quotes"? So as not to let the old guy be hung by people who unfairly vilify him, and who do so without offering one goddam alternative. You who accuse him of hypocricy must have found a way to live with your own. You "think" there are very good economic, social, and environmental reasons for opposing nuclear power expansion in favour of renewable energy and conservation... So the base load challenge to solar and wind in mid-winter Canada has been solved.
What twaddle.
There's an expression used to describe older scientists who start making unscientific pronouncements outside of their fields:
gone emeritus
You might want to check here to see what some actual working climate scientists are saying about Lovelock.
Ouch!
You might also want to check at What The Fuck's Up, Climate Fraudit and the other denial blogs to see how he has suddelny become the darling of the denialshpere.
William M. Connolley, software engineer:
Oh, he's only been involved with massive corruption of the children's science source.
ad hominem! but that makes two so-called experts on this board with their credibility questioned!
ad hominem! but that makes two so-called experts on this board with their credibility questioned!
Have you bothered to read what Connelley did? The bastard is psychotic, unpalatable even to the National Post.
What is the exquisite meaning that one should draw from "ad hominem! but that makes two so-called experts.... " just what in hell are you attempting to say in rebuttal to the exposure of someone who corrupted so many hundreds of Wiki entries? Are you well?
Actually, it had nothing to do with nuclear energy that convinced me that Lovelock is a fraud. I was already considering the nuclear arguments due more cogent and reasoned ones put forward by Howard Kunstler in the Long Emergency. Kunstler doesn't greenwash nuclear energy's toxic legacy nor does he whitewash the tragedy of Chernobyl nor does he pretend nuclear is clean energy. Rather, he argues simply, we can journey into the long emergency (the decline of cheap fossil fuel energy) with the lights on or the lights off.
I have listened to the proponents of nuclear and I am not convinced. I'm not convinced because there are the arguments that if nuclear is adopted to the extent it is being sold, uranium will become scarcer than light, sweet crude and potentially on a steeper curve; that nuclear means the end of coal no less than does wind or solar or any combination, and; franklly, when nuclear blows up it does so on an epic scale.
But am I religiously against nuclear, no? I just agree it is the most expensive and potentially dangerous way to boil water.
No, what convinced me Lovelock is a fraud was his absolute arrogance. I love the quote above: ""It may turn out that I was very wrong to have opposed those who sought instant legislation to stop the emission of CFCs."
Is that not beautiful? Has it not turned out so yet? Is the old fraud still denying the science? He says, "I was very wrong to have opposed" legislation. What legislation? In what way did he exercise his opposition? On whose behalf? The old fraud just told us he was politically, in some capacity, opposing regulating CFCs with legislation he calls "instant". Has any harmful industrial substance ever been banned "instantly"? How did CFCs get approved as benign? I bet that was closer to instant.
His language is still political and still dismissive but without evidence; just a lot of "maybes". What about the precautionary principle? Even if there was an argument about the harm of CFCs, Lovelock himself detected their prevalence. But what evidence was there they were not at all harmful? That evidence didn't exist.
That is just a hint of his arrogance. The further I got into his book the more annoyed I became and it wasn't his arguments. They're not really arguments at all. They are merely statements of fact presented as truth because they came from the pen of Lovelock. Who could argue with the pen of Lovelock? It was his arrogance and his enmity with anyone and everyone not up the ass of the industry to which he appears heavily indebted that was annoying. Everyone.
Read again from the New York Review of Books and remember these words belong to a professional reviewer I don't know, have never met, and swear to the Flying Spaghetti Monster I have not influenced in any way whatsoever:
His arrogance goes much further. And not just his arrogance but his sense of privilege and entitlement. And that is what really drove me around the bend. He came across to me as a petulant, rich, old man, confronting his mortality and deciding he has the money go to comfortably even if the rest of you be damned.
Now he thinks he recognizes the mortality of the Earth, and he has decided he and the Great White Skinned North have the money to go comfortably and the global south, who paid for that comfort, be damned. Yes, that is the argument that pisses me off to no end.
First, it is not the planet's mortality that is in sight it is our species. And second, no one can predict, not even the Almighty Fraudulent One, how climate change will play out. Yes, the Arctic will melt. But at what rate? How soon can methane emitting permafrost become crop producing on an industrial scale? What will be the rate of change? What if there is a tipping point that sees the planet enter into a new climate state that reduces all species 90 per cent as has happened previously? It is all a guess.
Third, and lastly, we are not so entitled and we are not so privileged that we can condemn 80 per cent of the planet's population with a mere shrug. We caused the problem, we ought to damn well be solving it and a big part of that is dramatically changing our own behaviours and reducing our own living standards to what is sustainable.
And that is the crux of Lovelock's argument for nuclear. It is not an argument like Kunstler's who looks down a long, dark tunnel and argues it's best to use whatever light we can generate. It is an argument that he, and his lovely wife, I'm sure, need not be inconvenienced and put upon by the annoyances of brownouts and blackouts while enjoying an evening on the balcony with a spot of tea.
There are people all over the world who live in a mortal darkness by day and a literal darkness by night. They know only hunger and fear and climate change, for them, is already real.
If the planet was the Titanic Lovelock is traveling first class and has a seat reserved on a lifeboat. For the rest of you poor Irish in steerage: glug, glug, glug ...
Poor George, hit nerve did I?
Poor George, hit nerve did I?
Let's see. you put forward Connelley as a solid source of scientific information rebutting Lovelock (stop me if I'm wrong).
I discover that he is corrupt and a fraud who's been thrown off the Wiki board (any correction needed so far?).
And you reply..."Poor George, hit nerve did I?"
This is unfolding like a psychodrama.
Do you want a real leader who represents real change, a real challenge, and a way forward? Read this lonely thread: http://www.rabble.ca/babble/environmental-justice/peoples%E2%80%99-world...
He didn't write a theory on it, but he understands with a clear vision that the Earth lives.
FM: "No, what convinced me Lovelock is a fraud was his absolute arrogance. I love the quote above: ""It may turn out that I was very wrong to have opposed those who sought instant legislation to stop the emission of CFCs."
Is that not beautiful? Has it not turned out so yet? Is the old fraud still denying the science? Also, he says, "I was very wrong to have opposed" legislation. What legislation? In what way did he exercise his opposition? On whose behalf? The old fraud just told us he was politically, in some capacity, opposing legislation to regulate CFCs with legislation he calls "instant". His language is still political and still dismissive but without evidence; just a lot of "maybes". What about the precautionary principle? Even if there was an argument about the harm of CFCs, Lovelock himself detected their prevalence, but what evidence was there they were not at all harmful? That evidence didn't exist."
I took great pains to note (3 times) that he was writing in 1988...that's damned near a quarter century, FM.
And yes, we've both read Kunstler...and he leaves us with some hope (nice trout in those upstate NY streams too). And you and I have also gone into depth in comparing notes on Jeff Rubin's Why Your World Is..... And that, too, unfolds very naturally as an extension of the present after fossil fuels run out. Hell, we even rebuild our indistrual economy because its going to be too costly to most those container ships across the Pacific. But, jeez, what if China goes nuclear with its shipping too...you know, like the oil tanker Manhattan that Uncle Sam sailed across the "Canadian" Arctic ...what was it, four decades or more ago? And we also know about the daily deprivation of a billion people out there (and at home) who go to bed very hungry, and I'm for revolution. But a few more people have to believe there's a big environmental problem facing us, first. And then there's the Irish of 1847...but I'm not exactly sure why they were placed here when the Satanic Mills of Britain would have done as well. Or elsewhere. Throw a dart. Damned snotty English country gents anyway. He did try to protect the hedrerows against the destructive forces of large scale agriculture though, you'll recall as a reader. Something about preserving bird life to do away with insects rather than....oops, abut then a half century back he though Silent Spring was a bit over the top, too. Jeez, they should have just shot him on the spot. Such contradictions over a lifetime. Ah well , we can't all be perfect.
And why do you suppose I "posted the Guardian quotes"? So as not to let the old guy be hung by people who unfairly vilify him, and who do so without offering one goddam alternative. You who accuse him of hypocricy must have found a way to live with your own. You "think" there are very good economic, social, and environmental reasons for opposing nuclear power expansion in favour of renewable energy and conservation... So the base load challenge to solar and wind in mid-winter Canada has been solved.
What twaddle.
Wind and solar are not the only renewables. Last I looked, hydro was more or less renewable, and there are various forms of geothermal. I also think the base-load argument somewhat bogus, given energy storage possibilities. We could live a similar lifestyle using half the energy (Japan and some European countries already do), which is why conservation is so important. Unlike nuclear, conservation and most renewables can be incrementally deployed or implemented.
http://re.pembina.org/pub/1763
ad hominem! but that makes two so-called experts on this board with their credibility questioned!
Have you bothered to read what Connelley did? The bastard is psychotic, unpalatable even to the National Post.
What is the exquisite meaning that one should draw from "ad hominem! but that makes two so-called experts.... " just what in hell are you attempting to say in rebuttal to the exposure of someone who corrupted so many hundreds of Wiki entries? Are you well?
A history of mental illness, but other than that I'm fine thanks!
So let me get this straight:
We have two academics being discussed here. One acts as an authoritarian in knowledge production on his field of study. The other one uses his prestige from knowledge production to unproblematically espouse authoritarian politics, which lay well outside his expertise.
And I should only be concerned with the smell of one's shit?
"To return to our clinical analogy...Could fears about the CFCs and the ozone layer have presaged discovery of the ozone hole and the climate-threatening greenhouse effect of CFCs?"
Except that they were, and Rowland and Molina shared a Nobel prize for it, ironically based on Lovelock's work.
Pw, if you are ready to dam all of the waterways with a head of more than 20 feet, you are indeed into serious (but completely unreasonable) territory. And the matter of storage of electricity...that is a broken reed that NO reputable scientist advocates...there is not even a reasonable basis in physics for belief that his has any hope of development. Lovelock is talking about the real world that we have allowed to develop based on capitalism's thirst for growth...indeed, economic theory demands that we grow or "perish" (as a market economy).
I taught courses in solar thermal building design, and was the first chairman of a local chapter of the Solar Energy Society of Canada, Inc. , a third of a century back. Was involved right up to my doodads in attempts to introduce PRACTICAL innovative energy sources into a society that did not give a fiddler's fart except about "what's in it for me?" And of course, compared with what the market could do for them over the same time frame, the answer was "not so much."
You mistake untested "ideas" for practical answers, and the rational demands of Capitalism do not allow us to to go off into speculative never never land physics in that fashion.
And yes, that quotattion I provided from Lovelock's The Ages of Gaia, was written in 1988, and I'm sure that's about as close as you'll get to reading the work with which he revolutionized science's views of the role of biota in maintaining Earth's thermal balance.
ad hominem! but that makes two so-called experts on this board with their credibility questioned!
Have you bothered to read what Connelley did? The bastard is psychotic, unpalatable even to the National Post.
What is the exquisite meaning that one should draw from "ad hominem! but that makes two so-called experts.... " just what in hell are you attempting to say in rebuttal to the exposure of someone who corrupted so many hundreds of Wiki entries? Are you well?
A history of mental illness, but other than that I'm fine thanks!
So let me get this straight:
We have two academics being discussed here. One acts as an authoritarian in knowledge production on his field of study. The other one uses his prestige from knowledge production to unproblematically espouse authoritarian politics, which lay well outside his expertise.
And I should only be concerned with the smell of one's shit?
Would you not say the smell emanating from the one, far out"ranked" the other, (who was not thrown off the source of children's science, the Wiki board?, but who was awarded many prizes by international scientific bodies)
I can't believe that you are comparing them, or that this exchange is even taking place. Perhaps a good night's sleep...
Lovelock is talking about the real world that we have allowed to develop based on capitalism's thirst for growth...indeed, economic theory demands that we grow or "perish" (as a market economy).
Actually, he's not. He's talking about his own rarified world he wishes to perpetuate. And speaking of perpetuating, where has Lovelock disowned that capitalistic "thirst for growth or perish" economic system? I'm not sure he has. In fact, I'd bet he still receives dividends from it.
He did try to protect the hedrerows against the destructive forces of large scale agriculture though, you'll recall as a reader.
He did? How? By researching efficiencies in agriculture? Plowing from hedgerow to hedgerow? What did he do to stop the destruction of the hedgerows?
He is a fraud.
And why does fecal matter come into play so often hereabouts?
You are no longer attempting to speak from evidence, FM.
How many times must a Lovelock say he's wrong,
Before you'll admit he's wrong?
The answer my friend is blowing out your ass,
The answer is blowing out your ass.
This has become one helluva learning experience for me. Dealing with diehard ideologues is an exhilerating if surreal and depressing experience. Just when you think there's hope through rational discourse.
Good night, sweet prince(s). This is obviously going nowhere with all minds made up beforehand and nothing more to add.
This has become one helluva learning experience for me. Dealing with diehard ideologues is an exhilerating if surreal and depressing experience. Just when you think there's hope through rational discourse.
He wouldn't know a diehard ideologue if one came up and bit him, nor rational discourse.
This has become one helluva learning experience for me. Dealing with diehard ideologues is an exhilerating if surreal and depressing experience. Just when you think there's hope through rational discourse.
He wouldn't know a diehard ideologue if one came up and bit him, nor rational discourse.
I hope for a day that people who know little about politics stop advocating for authoritarianism. Lovelock saying that there's too much democracy in the world is about as accurate and insightful as saying that the US is socialist (yet some people on the opposite side of the educational level spectrum make such claims).
How many dookies must a babbler smell,
Before s/he has reached the most rank,
The answer my friend is stinking up this thread,
The answer is stinking up this thread.
It was HIS bad science you dope. He invented the device to detect the CFCs. He was the one who recognized CFCs everywhere. He is the one who reported CFCs as being prevalent. He made the bad scientific finding, based on no evidence but his own belief, that CFCs were of "no conceivable hazard".
Lots of people thought CFCs were safe. They were created as a non-toxic, stable alternative to ammonia for refrigeration. They aren't reactive on their own so chemists felt justified in saying it was so. The truth had to wait for the research done by Molina and Rowland in 1974 (Lovelock's detection was in 1971) that considered what happens when CFCs get to the stratosphere.
Yes, but that is where the precautionary principle comes into play. Scientists also didn't think that CFCs would be persistent in the atmosphere. So think like a scientist or a detective for just a moment. You fnd CFCs are persistent, and not just persistent, but prevalent in Ireland. So you head to the most isolated place on earth, do your tests and find, again, they are prevalent and persistent. Does your spidey sense start to tingle? At that point, do you decide with no further investigation, that they pose no "conceivable (conceivable to whom, you might ask?) hazard" or do you think to yourself, this may require further study. Further study may have led our old fraud to a Nobel as it did those who followed up on his studies.
But now, let's leap forward. We now know of the hazard, conceivable or not, and our old fraud is arguing against "instant" regulation on behalf of Dow. At what point does the "conceivable hazard" become real enough to act on?
My former friend calls me an ideologue. That sad part is my friend is an ideologue worshipping another ideologue and he doesn't even know it.
Lovelock reserves his greatest hate-on for Rachel Carson. In my life experience there is only one group of people who hate Rachel Carson to such an extent. Most people either admire her or are indifferent. The group that hates her are the chemheads. Those who support and promote chemicals as the solution to everything. And Lovelock defends another chemcial persistent in our environment that is responsible for nearly wiping out the bald eagle among other large birds and many amphibians: DDT. A product from DOW Chemical.
And, Lovelock uses the exact same talking points in favour of DDT has the industrial chemheads who still fight the ban. So much for the birds in the English countryside he so loves.
My former friend George is a sucker buying into the snakeoil of an old fraud who learnt that having theorized on ancient beliefs of a living Earth he has bought his way inside the green movement as a fifth columnist.
The success of his efforts to undermine the green movement as an enemy of the Earth and promoter of those industries that have done so much to erode our biosphere does indeed prove one of his arguments: people--some people--are too stupid.
Maybe Lovelock would come clean, if George asked him, about his relationships with multinationals in the past and in the present and in particular DOW.
The bad guy, in the books of the pathetic:
James LovelockScientist, inventor and author
James Lovelock is born in 1919. An independent scientist for more than forty years as well as an Honorary Visiting Fellow of Green College, University of Oxford. He was elected to the Royal Society in 1974 and was made a Companion of Honour by Queen Elizabeth II in 2003. In addition, he has received ten international awards for his work as an environmentalist; these included the Blue Planet Prize, Volvo Prize and Wollaston Medal from the Geological Society in London.
James Lovelock's most notable scientific work is the Gaia theory, now generally accepted under the name Earth System Science, and the discovery in l972 of the CFCs in the atmosphere and their subsequent global monitoring. He is the inventor of the electron capture detector (ECD), which first alerted us to the ubiquitous distribution of pesticides and PCBs. He has throughout his career as an environmental scientist supported nuclear energy as a preferred supplier of electricity. He is the author of five books and over 200 scientific papers.
James Lovelock is the author of more than 200 scientific papers, distributed almost equally among topics in Medicine, Biology, Instrument and Atmospheric Science and Geophysiology. He has applied for more than 40 patents, mostly for detectors for use in chemical analysis.
He is the originator of the Gaia Hypothesis (now Gaia Theory) and has written three books on the subject: Gaia: a new look at life on Earth (Oxford University Press, 1979); The Ages of Gaia (WW Norton, 1988); Gaia: the practical science of planetary medicine (Gaia Books, 1991); and an autobiography, Homage to Gaia (Oxford University Press, 2000). His latest book is The Revenge of Gaia (Allen Lane/Penguin 2006).
He has been since 1994 an Honorary Visiting Fellow of Green College, University of Oxford.
Probably his invention of the eklectron capture detector "which first alerted us to the ubiquitous distribution of pesticides and PCBs" was his most destructive blow against humanity.
How does one go from eco-fascism to shades of hedonism in 24 hours?
"We need a more authoritative world. We've become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It's all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can't do that. You've got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course.
But it can't happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What's the alternative to democracy? There isn't one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while." - Lovelock, in G2 Interview dated March 29, 2010
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock
"Trying to save the planet is silly because we can not do that. If saved, the Earth will save herself, which is what she always did. The most sensible thing to do is enjoy life while we can" - Lovelock, in BBC interview dated March 30, 2010
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8594000/8594561.stm
Funny that he shoots down current scientists as "data fudgers", and that he is a rare "vocational" scientist with integrity. He's drawing the guns quite quick for a man whose capriciousness fudges his own claims.
Glad to. I provided a link to a discussion of Lovelock by fellow scientists, nothing more. It is hardly the only one.
Why, yes, there are. You assert that sources like Connolley -- note the proper spelling -- can be found in any comic book and libel him as a "bastard," "psychotic," "corrupt and a fraud" and assert that he is "involved with massive corruption," relying on a cite from What The Fuck's Up and referring to the National Pest.
Quite rich, that is. Obviously the irony escapes you.
Apparently I did, and a very raw nerve it is indeed.
In your quest to cannonise Lovelock you think nothing of viciously tearing down Connolley by grasping at smears gleaned from the denialsphere. And then you talk about diehard ideologues and rational discourse?
Lovelock's many achievements and contributions to science are real and to be greatly respected. No one has called him a corrupt psychotic bastard or a fraud, but the fact is in his twilight he is losing it.
Goodnight, dear George. Have fun down the rabbit hole.
Sounds fascist to me. Also, the idea that democracies automatically suspend democracy in war time is actually false. The Sadanista government allowed elections during Contra War, and Roosevelt was elected again in 1944, at the height of WWII. Indeed Canada held elections in 1917, and in fact extended the right to vote to some women, for that election, and indeed held another in 1940, one year into WWII.
This kind of ossification of polictical thought, regardless of whatever other intellectual merits or achievements fellows like this might have are charachteristic of technocratic-authoritarian streak rampant among Oxford trained intellectuals; they simply can not abide disagreement, and stand on "authority" when challenged.
The fact that he even gets his facts wrong, as outlined above, shows the kind of anglo-centric intellectual inbreeding that occurs there.
VGE, you should read more of Lovelock's earlier work, from the 80s and 90s, before you accuse others of shallowness. Lovelock believes that Homo sapiens, armed with a system of government that rewards greed first, is likely not up to saving itself. He and a neighbour, the late William (Lord of the Flies) Golding had no illusions about the capacity of our species to save itself. Mobilizing as for war is something that even Canada's Charles Taylor was not averse to brooting a few decades back. As practised in the 1940s, it did not end democracy, there were elections, but profiteering was out and corporate leaders became " $1 - a- year0-men" to head wartime production efforts. Of course, there were other economies required... :D
As the tireless readers here will confirm, it helps to start a book at the beginning, and in post #6, you'll see that democracy was certanly maintained. Conscription caused rumblings in Quebec in both dustups, but as all know, a formula to save the country was found : "Conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription."
Probably, Lovelock is thinking along the lines of that other old fascist, Winston Churchill, when he said something to the effect that democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others ...(and I'm sure I've done injurty to the quote).
But tell me, please, why does the pack form and the cry "fascist" go up, when a little reflection would tell you that that is the most banal and anal of accusations when it is used so liberally as to be made meaningless? And your agitated, pointless accusations only go to underline Lovelock's point - that the mob could never be trusted to arrive at a political solution to the apocalyptic situation that our species has created.
What can I say? Winston Churchill was born in Oxfordshire... nuff said.
Transplont's idea of scientific objectivity....under "Wikibullies":
All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain article, he removed it - more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred - over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley's global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia's blessings.
Tps telling comment:
But I do not canonize Lovelock (note the proper spelling of canonize). I just won't stand by and watch the neighbourhood toughs throw spitballs at someone who may yet have rung the alarm bells in time...if they can be heard over the excited chatter."Why, yes, there are. You assert that sources like Connolley -- note the proper spelling -- can be found in any comic book and libel him as a "bastard," "psychotic," "corrupt and a fraud" and assert that he is "involved with massive corruption," relying on a cite from What The Fuck's Up and referring to the National Pest.
Quite rich, that is. Obviously the irony escapes you."
And your agitated, pointless accusations only go to underline Lovelock's point - that the mob could never be trusted to arrive at a political solution to the apocalyptic situation that our species has created.
Which mob? The scientists that fudge data or have fickle talking points based on personal musings and not their research? The political - corporate - wealthy class nexus that thwarts democracy in all but its representational/electoral forms and which is responsible for much of the earth's destruction - and for manipulating humans into being huge wasters for their benefit? Or the disparate groups of humans who live with the actual consequences of this world, who don't have the right to shape their futures because they are mere peons to types like the former two classes?
Must retire from this bloodied field of battle and do battle with a tree I've felled - before it took away the corner of my roof. Gaia, the axe work felt good...know what I mean? (must be a throwback to some ancient Viking berserker) :D
The bad guy, in the books of the pathetic:
You quoted his own bio to prove he isn't a fraud? How far are you willing to sink? Using that approach, Harper is a great leader, Hitler is a genius, Mussolini made the trains run on time, and Exxon is a responsible environmental leader. Holy fuck, George. I thought I was kidding when I inferred you drank from the kool aid.
George, could you not just admit that Lovelock has stated a number of things that aren't credible?
Double Posted
Could a devout Catholic admit a virgin giving birth isn't credible?
Y'know, the weather this spring is starting out much like that of '88. You remember that one eh, Martha? Real hot...and dry, too. Had folks talkin' about climate change all of a sudden. Why, remember the farmer who painted somethin' about climate in six foot letters across the front of his barn? Yep, folks didn't get all bogged down in questions of persanality and accuse others of being constipated in those days, eh? No siree.
Guess folks have to do something to keep them occupied...but you'd think they'd actually try to say something about the science itself, somewhere in all that chatter, eh Martha?
Yep, folks didn't get all bogged down in questions of persanality and accuse others of being constipated in those days, eh? No siree.
You were saying about Connelly?
There are wonderful people reading the science and acting on it. Lovelock is not about the science and never has been. He is an industrial schill. Acknowledge it. And then forget him. The real work is taking place not in the corrupt minds of ancient old men but in the young minds of the global south where the luxury of keeping the lights on while the planet boils isn't an option.
See ya, George.
Transplant reminds us the Wikibullies' name is Connolley...I cannot now forget the guy who altered some 1500 Wiki passages to suit his idea of the universe.
Yeah, FM, we are never going to discuss the Gaia theory over a morning coffee (or lazy afternoon beer) I guess - as long as the Guardian finds him quotable, we'll probably go on about the old fart until he's no longer extant. Doubt his science will disappear, though. In fact I fully expect that some really, really hot, dry summer hereabouts, op-ed editors all over the place will rediscover him and in a knowing way say: "Well, we were warned", using that ubiquitous "we" as though Homo sapiens can be lumped together in the way that editors and the politically correct find so convenient.
From the "global south"... The Weather Makers? Naw, he largely support JL. The Kenyan woman, Nobel winner, who's idea is to keep ahead of desertification by planting trees? She's already history.
Just one last missive please, FM? What young minds from the "global south"?Then I can get reading.
Happy gardening.
*sigh*
...was going to start a new thread for ya, butif you want to carry on up to you
Just one last missive please, FM? What young minds from the "global south"?Then I can get reading.
I'll field that, George. The ones that fight tooth and nail to go to respectable institutions in their home countries or in neighbouring countries just be heard (provided that they get that far ahead), or the ones that settle for state-run institutions because they could not get ahead. And then there are millions of Lovelocks and other brilliant minds walking around hawking goods on streets and in markets, and working in their homes micro-producing. They were aborted from the 'excellence' trajectory because life is more difficult than enjoying the fruits of colonialism (ironically part of the reason our earth is in such a mess).
These people constitute the "too stupid" group Lovelock talks about from his Western-funded excellence.
Then there are the privileged minds and the very few underprivileged that infiltrate parochial western academia, like in the UK/Europe and North America, by studying in western institutions, become aligned with western outlooks on the global south, and go back home and tell you what you want to hear.
Geez, I wonder why you never heard of them!?
I wouldn't mind a conversation about scientists as colonialist elitists, even the seemingly progressive ones, remind.
So elitist that they think they can spew unsubstantiated claims under the guise of 'expertise'.
j.m.:
"These people constitute the "too stupid" group Lovelock talks about from his Western-funded excellence."
They do like hell, and you know it. Lovelock is talking about twits like yourself who don't "dig" his science and avoid talk about science like the plague itself. "unsubstantiated claims under the guise of 'expertise' ". The Gaia theory is now mainstream science, you silly ass. The effect on Earth is going to first affect all those young people now nearest the doldrums, as the rainfall falls into an increasingly narrow band. But what the hell.
Please remind, no more of this innuendo about elitist, snotty, ruling class scientists. Anyone looking in woould think we picked up folks from Marxist madrassas.
j.m.:
"These people constitute the "too stupid" group Lovelock talks about from his Western-funded excellence."
They do like hell, and you know it. Lovelock is talking about twits like yourself who don't "dig" his science and avoid talk about science like the plague itself. "unsubstantiated claims under the guise of 'expertise' ". The Gaia theory is now mainstream science, you silly ass. The effect on Earth is going to first affect all those young people now nearest the doldrums, as the rainfall falls into an increasingly narrow band. But what the hell.
Please remind, no more of this innuendo about elitist, snotty, ruling class scientists. Anyone looking in woould think we picked up folks from Marxist madrassas.
Your point comes across very racist, unless you care to clarify what you mean by your affirmation "they do like hell". As for calling me a silly ass, I think we know very well where bathroom humour gets us (shall we have another modified verse of "blowin' in the wind", FM?).
I was referring to his "too stupid" comment and the authoritarianism that will ensue, and then his comment (one day later) that the world is screwed and we should enjoy it while we can. Seriously George, you missed the entire point of my comment (and you appear to be purposefully ignoring certain inconvenient facts). I shall rephrase it again, and maybe this time you won't come out guns a'blazing: do you believe that parochialism doesn't exist in Western academia? and that post-colonial and marxist-inspired theories do not explain why you can't seem to find a smart person from the global south?
long thread