James Lovelock, Godfather of Green: Climate Change Religion is Bunk

[raykeller]

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/10/01/james-lovelock-godfather-green-climate-change-religion-totally-unscientific/

James Lovelock, Godfather of Green: Climate Change Religion is Bunk
James Delingpole | 1 Oct 20160

James Lovelock, inventor of Gaia Theory and godfather of the modern
environmental movement, has renounced the green religion.
Climate alarmism, he says, is not â?oremotely scientificâ?ť; one volcano
could make more difference to global warming than humans ever could; the
computer models are â?ounreliableâ?ť; greens have behaved â?odeplorablyâ?ť;
and anyone who tries to â?opredict more than five to ten years is a bit of
an idiot.â?ť

Though this is not the first time Lovelock has rowed back on his earlier
climate catastrophism â?" in 2012 he was already admitting â?oI made a
mistakeâ?ť â?" itâ?Ts his most emphatic rejection yet of the green litany.

Lovelock, 97, ascribes the dramatic change in his once fervently alarmist
beliefs to the fact that he has â?ogrown up.â?ť

Only ten years ago â?" when the inventor, scientist and environmentalist
was a mere spring chicken of 87 â?" Lovelock argued in his book The Revenge
of Gaia that mankind was doomed.

Because of global warming, he predicted, â?obillions will dieâ?ť and the few
survivors would have to retreat to the Arctic which would be one of the few
habitable places left on earth.

But now he admits to being â?olaid back about climate change.â?ť

â?oCO2 is going up, but nowhere near as fast as they thought it would. The
computer models just werenâ?Tt reliable. In fact Iâ?Tm not sure the whole
thing isnâ?Tt crazy, this climate change. Youâ?Tve only got to look at
Singapore. Itâ?Ts two-and-a-half times higher than the worst-case scenario
for climate change, and itâ?Ts one of the most desirable cities in the world
to live in.â?ť

...
But Lovelock himself insists that it is simply a question of looking at the
evidence.

One experience that has sharply concentrated his thoughts is the cost of
heating his home, an old mill in Devon. When the heating bills rose to
ÂŁ6,000 for just six months, he realised that he would have to downsize and
has now moved to a smaller cottage on Chesil Beach in Dorset. This claim
has brought him into conflict with another green guru, the chunky knit
Guardianista George Monbiot.

â?oI remember George Monbiot took me up on it and wrote that it was
impossible, that I had to be lying. But I wasnâ?Tt lying, Iâ?Tve got the
figures.â?ť Monbiot doesnâ?Tt quite accuse him of lying, in fairness; just
of â?otalking rubbishâ?ť and â?omaking wild statementsâ?ť. In any case, he
says that in the US he found he could heat a house for six months, in
temperatures of -20C (-4F), for just ÂŁ60. As a result, he has withering
contempt for environmentalistsâ?T opposition to fracking. â?oYou see, gas in
America is incredibly cheap, because of fracking,â?ť he says. But what about
the risk of triggering earthquakes? He rolls his eyes.

â?oSure enough, thatâ?Ts true, there will be an increase. But theyâ?Tre
tiny little tremors, they would be imperceptible. The only trouble is that
you can detect them. The curse of my life has been that Iâ?Tve spent a lot
of time inventing devices that are exceedingly sensitive.


And the moment somebody can detect something, theyâ?Tre going to attach a
number to it, and then they make a fuss about it.â?ť He chuckles, then
pauses. â?oIâ?Tm not anti-green in the sense that Iâ?Tm in favour of
polluting the world with every damn thing we make. I think weâ?Tve got to be
careful. But Iâ?Tm afraid, human nature being what it is, the thing gets
exaggerated out of all proportion, and the greens have behaved deplorably
instead of being reasonably sensible.â?ť

...

[PaxPerPoten]

On 10/1/2016 4:38 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 12:24:43 -0700, "raykeller@looser_losers.com> wrote
> some sort of secret code to his mother planet.
>
>> http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/10/01/james-lovelock-godfather-green-climate-change-religion-totally-unscientific/
>> t â?oremotely scientificâ??; â?ounreliableâ??; â?opredict â??
>>
>> â?" â?oI eâ?? â?" itâ?Ts.
>>
>>> beliefs s â?ogrown up.â??
>>
>> Only ten â?" 87 â?" kÂ
>>
>> predicted, â?obillions will dieâ??
>>
>> â?olaid .â??
>>
>> â?oCO2 â?Tt reliable. In fact Iâ?Tisnâ?Tt craz Youâ?Tve . Itâ?Ts itâ?Ts.â??
>>
>> â?oI remember I wasnâ?Tt lying, Iâ?Tv figures.â?? Monbiot doesnâ?Tt
>> of â?otalking rubbishâ?? and â?omaking wild statementsâ??. â?T opposition
>> to fracking. â?oYou see, fracking,â?? he says.
>
> Who can argue with that?

Argue with what??
>


--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster