Comments Rod Bhar has made
Need more disasters
This sounds awful to say, but let's hope we get a weather disaster in the US this year. A killer heat wave over the eastern US like the one that hit France in 2003 would be perfect. 100F for weeks on end would scare people **less. It would also kill several thousand people, but that's needed at this point. Coming after the freakish hurricane season of 2005, that might be all it takes to wake up the people of USA.
I think if that happened Lovelock might write another article telling us that there is now hope. His dire prediction was based on a worst case scenario of US, China, etc. doing too little too late. There's no guarantee that that will happen. Disasters can be very motivating. What's needed is a 9/11 for global warming.On Gaia theorist says we're all doomed posted 3 years, 10 months ago 34 Responses
Agreed, there are problems with Lovelock's article
The more I read the more confusing it gets. Lovelock is not clear. Is he saying that there's is no possible hope now and we are dead? Which raises the question why write the article at all? I think if I knew the world was doomed and nothing could be done, I would keep it to myself just to allow people to enjoy life while they could. In another article he stated it was a "wake up" call. Why would anyone want or need to "wake up" to invevitable doom?
Or is he saying that we aren't dead yet, but he doesn't think the major CO2 emitters will act in time, so we are dead.
Or is he saying that we shouldn't give up hope because the world will join the war on global warming when it gets bad? This is what he expressed in an interview only a couple of weeks ago.
Or is he saying that the war on global warming will be "exciting" (his word) but hopeless anyway and we are dead?
Or is he saying that the war on global warming will come and it will be "exciting" and it will prevent us from all dying but the world will be irreversible devasted and we will wish we were dead anyway?
I respect the man and his knowledge, but I don't get it anymore. I don't think a man of his stature should predict doom without a lot more clarity. A doctor doesn't tell you you have a serious disease probably fatal, tune in later for more details.On Gaia theorist says we're all doomed posted 3 years, 10 months ago 34 Responses
Yes Lovelock does support nuclear energy
But he is not a shill. As a scientist he supports it because he feels that the risks are vastly overstated and that it is far more important to stop emitting carbon dioxide. There are many scientists who support this. He thinks that renewables are nice but not ready to do the job to replace fossil fuel and we don't have 50 years to wait for visionary technology to save us. He advocates nuclear as an interim measure until those new technologies are developed. It's a reasonable position. I support it as well, and I'm nothing but a committed environmentalist not a shill for the nuclear industry either.On Gaia theorist says we're all doomed posted 3 years, 10 months ago 34 Responses
Some of Lovelock's inconsistencies
I've defended Lovelock's credibility and right to make his catastrophic statements about the future under global warming, but there is an obvious question:
If he truly believes that we have "passed the point of no return" and we face an automatic death sentence, why publish the article? or the book? what purpose does it serve to destroy people's hope even if it is false? I suspect he feels that there may still be time and this is his way of shaking up the debate. I believe that he is sincere about the likely concequences of not acting however--collapse of civilization and devastation of the Earth. I don't think he would exagerate that.
Here's a quote from an interview with The Guardian on Dec. 31, 2005:
"One of the awful things I find today is that young people come to me and ask if there is any hope. Of course there's hope. At the moment, we are just waiting as we were in the 30s, when everyone knew war was coming but no one knew what to do about it. The moment the war started, we knew that the prospect was pretty awful, but there was a wonderful sense of purpose. There were no consumer goods, and food was strictly rationed. We never considered that time hopeless. When climate change gets bad, then there will be excitement, and that's the payoff. As Crispin Tickell said, what we need is leadership - and disaster."On Gaia theorist says we're all doomed posted 3 years, 10 months ago 34 Responses
More on Lovelock
Most of Lovelock's fears are about positive feedback effects. In the last year or two several major ones have been identified that are swinging into motion now. Here are three that I recently found in the news:
- Accelerated melting of arctic ice cap. This is melting far faster than was early thought. As it melts it uncovers dark ocean which absorbs the sun's energy rather than reflects it as ice does.
- Melting permafrost. Permafrost is melting all across the arctic, as it does it decays and produces methane which is a greenhouse gas some 20 times more powerful than C02.
- Warming oceans are preventing nutrient upwelling from deep water. This is a body blow to the ocean food chain and reduces the growth of photosynthetic plankton which extract enormous amounts of C02 from the air.
- Accelerated melting of arctic ice cap. This is melting far faster than was early thought. As it melts it uncovers dark ocean which absorbs the sun's energy rather than reflects it as ice does.
David
Lovelock may be wrong and Annan right. Let's hope so. It's really an argument for the climatologists to make amongst themselves not us.
If the great majority of climatologists come out and dismiss Lovelock as over doing it, then probably he is. But even then it would not be a certainty. He has a history of being farsighted and ahead of his time. That is an undeniable fact.
I think Annan loses a lot of credibility when he says that Lovelock is making "a plug for his new enviro-horror fantasy thriller, and not a scientifically meaningful comment any more than the execrable Crichton." That is an ignorant and outrageous comment about Lovelock. He is a respected scientist not a science fiction novelist. He was a pioneer in our understanding of how the Earth works with his Gaia theory, which is widely accepted today.
I've seen other climatologists comment on Lovelock's article and none of them have been dismissive of the man. Many have said that coming from him it must be taken seriously. It should not be gospel just because Lovelock says so. So you are right, he doesn't get a "free pass", nobody does. But it can't be dismissed either.
Personally, I feel Lovelock is credible. And that is scary. Most people you could dismiss it as hyperbole. But this man has a deep understanding of the Earth. Let's hope that he is wrong.On Gaia theorist says we're all doomed posted 3 years, 10 months ago 34 Responses
Lovelock is a scientist
James Lovelock is a scientist so he tells it like he sees it, which is what he has done.
You shouldn't criticize him for putting "too gloomy" a spin on global warming. His obligation is to the truth.On Gaia theorist says we're all doomed posted 3 years, 10 months ago 34 Responses