Thursday, April 01, 2010

Let us hope the Gaia Guru is dead wrong

James Lovelock, the man who let us into the secret that the earth is a self-regulating organism, now fears that there is nothing we can do to save our earth:

Professor James Lovelock, the scientist who developed Gaia theory, has said it is too late to try and save the planet. The man who achieved global fame for his theory that the whole earth is a single organism now believes that we can only hope that the earth will take care of itself in the face of completely unpredictable climate change.

What about our chances of reducing greenhouse gas emissions through the various steps being proposed? Lovelock does not think we have much of a chance:

What is more, he predicts, the earth's climate will not conveniently comply with the models of modern climate scientists.

As the record winter cold testifies, he says, global temperatures move in "jerks and jumps", and we cannot confidently predict what the future holds.

And his advice to us? Short and sweet:

At the age of 90, Prof Lovelock is resigned to his own fate and the fate of the planet. Whether the planet saves itself or not, he argues, all we can do is to "enjoy life while you can".

If the Gaia Guru is right, then as the earth warms up and starts destroying the life we know, we can turn inwards and start pointing fingers at those who are responsible.

For starters, we can blame Harper and his regressive party's non-policies of emissions reduction.

Then we can blame the Liberal Party, for its failure to come out with a clear, effective and timely environmental policy designed to reduce our country's emissions of greenhouse gases to a safe level.

9 comments :

  1. A more optimistic and equally compelling assessment comes from the NOAA's James Hansen. In his book "Storms of My Grandchildren" Hansen argues that there is still time to prevent runaway global warming but ... and this is a huge 'but' ...the industrialized democracies have to give up all use of coal within 10-years with the rest of the world (China & India) following suit a decade later.

    Hansen believes we can still rely on readily-accessible sources of oil and gas during the transition to non-carbon energy but that means leaving all energy-intensive resources such as tar sands and shale oil in the ground untouched. In other words no "drill baby drill" and an absolute ban on the dirtiest sources of oil and gas.

    Unless we meet those conditions, Hansen foresees the situation Lovelock envisions - and that ain't good.

    Of course with that dipshit Ignatieff praising the Tar Sands as a key to Canadian unity and the foundation for Canadian prosperity through the 21st century, we're screwed. More proof (not that anyone needs it) that Iggy is just another ambitious punk willing to do whatever he considers necessary to advance his personal career.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Repeat after me:

    CO2 is not a pollutant.

    The Medieval Warm Period occurred with no help from mankind.

    I could add more but what's the point?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Myth: The Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035.
    Fact: The IPCC has admitted that was completely wrong.

    Myth: The world's temperature is getting warmer.
    Fact: Phil Jones admitted there has been no temperature increase in 15 years.

    Myth: Polar bear population is declining.
    Fact: Dr. Mitchell Taylor who has studied polar bears for over 30 years says the population is actually increasing.

    Myth: Sea Ice is declining.
    Fact: NASA has just come up with a new finding. Sea Ice is back in the NORMAL range.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "...For starters, we can blame Harper and his regressive party's non-policies..."

    Puhleese!!!

    How about George W. Bush? How about Adam Smith? I don't know, maybe Marx? If Marx hadn't caused an escalating competitive system we probably could have avoided all of this.

    Or maybe it is God's fault for putting us here with all these resources.

    Or just maybe, the earth has had many temperature, precipitation and atmospheric aerosol extremes in the past and is building negative feedback loops to deal with it, just as Lovelock (back when he wasn't a dottering old man) predicted.

    Or of course we can:

    "... blame Harper and his regressive party's non-policies..."

    cheers,

    Tomm

    ReplyDelete
  5. This proven, scientific, peer reviewed opinion is all I need to convince me that we must immediately funnel all our budget money into a UN lead environmental crusade. Pull all the money from infrastructure, healthcare and pensions because it will all be to waste if we have no planet to live on.

    What a load of crap. It's the new religion of the loonies.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Phew that's a relief! I thought I might be the sole dissenting voice here again but also because it seems the message of the 'deniers' has made it through the fog [ha ha] of the warmists blanket coverage of the subject.
    You might check out Environmentalism: the new home of the Luddite reactionaries. by Roger L Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hmmm... Sounds like the luddite deniers are out in full force this morning...

    Societies which deny science are destined for extinction. The decline of societies occurs (throughout history) when their citizens are more concerned about personal riches and excesses vs. the advice of the learned...

    When flag-waving, self-importance, and an "I can't do any wrong" attitude permeated the empires of the Greeks, Romans, English, and now, more recently, the Americans, decline ensues. When these societies cease to heed the words of their best and brightest (because, you know, each of us has way more knowledge than 97%-plus of the experts in a field... Just comes with the territory of being so well-to-do ourselves), they begin to fall apart and fail...

    Oh... ligneus: "reactionary" is a term that is clearly used to reference right wingers... The term on the left is usually "radical".

    ReplyDelete
  8. Just me? What of the other commenters who went into a little more detail than me?
    What about the MWP? Are you saying that it didn't happen? that it did but has no significance? Haven't you read any of the info coming out of Climategate and the related NASA misuse of data?
    The MWP happened, they were farming in Greenland, growing grapes for wine in Scotland, it went on for five hundred years to be followed by the little ice age.
    There is also evidence that a rise in CO2 is an effect of warming, not a cause.
    At the very least the science is not 'settled' as the warmists would have it.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for commenting; come again! Let us reason together ...

Random posts from my blog - please refresh page for more: