Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Politics

'Gaia' Scientist Admits Mispredicting Rate of Climate Change 744

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the captain-planet-will-still-kill-you dept.
DesScorp writes "James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing '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.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"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 climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Gaia' Scientist Admits Mispredicting Rate of Climate Change

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 25, 2012 @10:29AM (#39794467)

    1. Stop building Coal power generation plants
    2. Build a single Thorium power plant, then activate all others after it with that plant to save money.
    3. Dismantle all non-thorium power plants
    4. Profit

    Thorium is safe, a non-sustainable reaction. Ergo, if the heat sink fails (Japan + Tsunami) the reaction stop by itself. There is plenty of it, enough to keep the U.S. running for a 1000 years, it's cheap, and it takes a mere 100 years before it's not dangerously radioactive anymore. And most of all... ITS CLEAN.

    I hate governments saying: "We all have to do our bit for the climate, so we raise taxes on fuel", while building a shitload of coal power plants. So why aren't we using thorium yet? Very simple, it's expensive to put the first one there (even though all others would be cheaper), and, this is the big one, you can't make nuclear weapons with it.

    See how easily the problems in the world would be solved if we didn't have retarded politicians?

  • by Overzeetop (214511) on Wednesday April 25, 2012 @10:29AM (#39794469) Journal

    You clearly didn't work in the cooling business. To them, they sky WAS falling, and it was falling on them. Until they found a replacement (which was more expensive and less efficient, but legal). Dismantling is a very harsh word.

  • Re:Vindication (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MozeeToby (1163751) on Wednesday April 25, 2012 @10:38AM (#39794613)

    Lovelock's climate change, the stuff he predicted 30 years ago and which he's now saying was inaccurate, was the stuff of bad science fiction movies and bears very little resemblance to the actual predictions made by climate scientists. No serious climate scientist has ever predicted 90% of the worlds surface being uninhabitable. Compared to his predictions, the less than 1 degree C rise in temperatures we have seen is "nothing much", the problem is that 1 degree C is more than enough to screw up all kinds of stuff. It's just not enough to drive humanity to the brink of extinction like he predicted two decades ago.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 25, 2012 @11:52AM (#39795695)

    #2 Solar panels work great. I have em, and they cut my bill in half. You mean they can't replace coal by themselves by tomorrow? SHocking. They must be useless and tossed out.

    The word "great" is highly suspect there and rather nebulas. What you mean to say is, the capital expenses are extremely high and the return on investiment is extremely long. Furthermore, expect to make the same investiment just about every time you've re-couped your previous investment. All the while creating an environmental smudge, contrary to the intire intent most people go with solar. And given loss of opportunity costs, few people who bother to do the math an/dor can understand it, are the least bit interested in solar for anything other than commercial use.

    So yes, clearly, "great", doesn't mean what you pretend it means in this context.

  • by GreatBunzinni (642500) on Wednesday April 25, 2012 @12:29PM (#39796247)

    Japan has just finished turning off all nuclear power over a "disaster" that proved just how safe modern nuclear can be. Wind, hydro, tide .. these are all bullshit: they will never matter in the big picture, they'll feelgood measures that's don't actually accomplish anything large scale, just like most green initiatives.

    According to wikipedia, Portugal produces 52% of its energy from renewable sources, with a combination of hydro, solar, wind and geothermal. [wikipedia.org] Do you see 52% of the energy produced in a country with a population of 11 million as "all bullshit" and a failure to "actually accomplish anything large scale"?

  • by doston (2372830) on Wednesday April 25, 2012 @01:32PM (#39797195)

    Yes, because a large (massive) government that heavily controls industry is soooo much better for the environment. *cough*China*cough*USSR*cough*.

    HA shows how little you know about government and industry. The reason China has such filthy industry is unregulated capitalism and lack or regulation enforcement. Has nothing to do with the SIZE of government, simpleton. The problems with the USSR had nothing to do with the SIZE of government and the government had nothing in common with socialism, contrary to populat opinion. In fact, the propagandists in the USSR wanted its citizens to think they were living in socialism because the people there (rightly) wanted it. It was really totalitarian. That all worked out well for the propagandists in the US who wanted us to think socialism sucks, so they could point at the USSR and say "Look, that's an example of socialism". Same propaganda for different purposes. Pick up a book someday.

  • by doston (2372830) on Wednesday April 25, 2012 @02:57PM (#39798375)

    If I start my own business I am instantly transformed into an evil creature that can be only controlled through government regulation and labor union? Business are run by people. They have accountability for their product and business practices every day. You can choose to buy the product or not. Unless the government is involved. Examples of companies where the government is involved included utilities (granted monopoly via right aways), large corporations (tax breaks for locating, laws that grant them an advantage), and any business that litigates a patent. There have been numerous times for different reasons I have stopped buying a company's product. The government is only accountable on a regular cycle, sometimes two, four, and even six years. With the elected official the incumbents have significant advantage in resources and infrastructure for getting relected. With the unelected officials you have a labor rules that makes it virtually impossible to fire someone, so you wind up moving them to the position where they do the least damage. With labor unions they only have to sell their product every time the contract is up for renegotiation this can also be a number of years. They also gain from the fact that their product is a nebulous we make your life better.

    Your small business, which you'll likely never start, isn't the same as the local coal plant. That kind of business needs heavy regulation. And yes, once you're a real "corporation", you do need to be regulated. Here's what people don't seem to get. CEOs are nice guys. I get that. They have kids, families, care about the environment, etc. The problem is corporate charter says that in their institutional role, they must do whatever they can to make the most profit. So however nice a person is, in their institutional role, they can't always be so nice and are often quite destructive. This concept is confusing to a simpleton, I know.

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Working...