Climate change - Canny's bailout?

Sad. You clearly don’t understand climatology, even while you lecture us about it.

The climate system is subject to black swans in the same was as geophysical and economic systems. It exhibits Hurst scaling. e.g. sea
surface temperatures from 1854 show this. No surprise, thats how complex, non-linear, out of equilibrium,
driven systems behave. Read some Mandelbrot FFS.

That is one reason why IPCC have been so cautious and the range of outcomes so wide. No serious climate scientist would attach a 98%
probability to any given climatic outcome, such as “the world will warm by 3 deg or more”. Only their whackjob green groupies do that.

Cut the stupid green ad hominem attacks on Lovelock, and read what he actually says.

Let’s not change the topic here - you quoted someone referencing the scientific consensus behind temperature increases and the theory that humans were a significant factor behind those increases and said “Yeah well 99% of fund managers thought…”. Nobody was talking about worst case scenarios yet now you want to pretend that’s what you were refuting.

i am a physicist FYI

Lovelock is a genius imo. You should read him. He’s miles above above your common or garden climatologist… I wouldn’t say climatology is a hard science either. The problem with it is developing a holistic view - because there are so many inter-relating factors involved. Modern scientists narrowly specialise. That is the system. Thus very few of them get to develop the big picture. But that is what this problem demands… Lovelock has immersed himself in the big picture for years and years. He has a genius intelligence. And he has worked independently, and so been free to pursue the truth to the very best of his abilities. Which is all science really is (or should be about) at the end of the day.

Say what?

For the last 10 years, I have been of the opinion that climate change, due to human activity, was most likely occurring. However, due to the massive increases in the world population, there was nothing that could be done about it. Most of the carbon locked up in fossil fuels is going to end up in the atmosphere; changing to CFL bulbs etc is just going delay it by a few years.

Glad to see that Lovelock has come around to my point of view :smiley:

there would be a definite element of that in some of the more intelligent stuff that I’ve read about this. Theres no point spending a bloody fortune trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. We shouldn’t even be talking about it because we’re wasting time and money talking about it. Instead we should be talking about how we are doing to deal with the reality that the horse is gone.

And that means what? You don’t need to reference any of your claims? I’m an engineer so maybe this like rock paper scissors; who wins?

So enlighten us. Make a hypothesis, present data and have it peer reviewed by the people who have spent their lives studying it and then we might start taking your seriously. Until then you’re just another crank flat earther.

keep it civil folks :slight_smile:

back on topic please!

I gave up on political fora exactly because of threads like this.

People on either side have an entrenched position, which won’t be moved, both sides then start playing to the imaginary undecided audience, concentrating on outmanoeuvring the opponent rather than trying to convince them.

Always ends up generating more heat than light. (insert pun here)

To ‘The Piston’ with it!

It means that your hysterical ad hominem attack

is … um … off-target.

I am definitely in the Lomborg camp and was liking what I was reading about Lovelock but he sounds like a nut if the above is true. Any comeback Lovelock lubbers?

Since when is wikipedia the authority on anything? :open_mouth: Read his books and papers.

Lovelock is hugely respected. He thinks climate change will be much worse than concensus. That does not make him a nut. The greens
would like you to think he is a nut because he comprehensively rubbishes many of their core beliefs. For example, on nuclear power.

Wikipedia links directly to the article they reference, their summary appears accurate to me

Probably some greenies hacked into and wrote that stuff to discredit him :slight_smile:

its for exactly this reason that I really do recomend that people consider reading either “The Skeptical Environmentalist” or “Cool It” by the Danish political scientist and author Bjørn Lomborg. The original book (TSE) is more wide-ranging. The second book is an expansion of what he has said before about global warming.

A friend of mine recommended the original book to me and I came at it expecting it to be some kind of apologia for r@ping the environment so I was very critical. Lomborg explains in laymans terms why the debate isn’t the debate you think it is at all. And the second part of the title is very important - Lomborg would self-identify himself as environmentalist. And so would I. But believe-you-me - if you’re interested in actually helping the environment and in helping the human race then we’ve got to stop listening to people like the Irish Green party. They think that its possible to fix things with simple knee-jerk solutions that cost a fortune. But if you really want to help the environment then you need to come up with much more complex solutions. You still need to spend the same money - but you need to spend it in much different and more creative ways.

And this is why the Green Party and many environmentalists are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. They spend taxpayer money to make the taxpayers life a misery without actually really improving the environment while simultanously p!ssing away goodwill toward the environment. You could say we’d be better off if we just sat back and enjoyed the ride - at least then we’d be enjoying ourselves and not wasting our money without actually helping the environment. But instead we have the worst of both worlds - all this money and inconvenience and f*ck-all to show for it at the end. It just doesn’t make sense.

For anybody who is keen on the environment I really can’t recommend it enough. To use a pop-culture reference it’s like Morpheus exhortation to Neo : stop trying to hit me and hit me.

Well, Lovelock knows better than anyone on this forum what science consists of. And what a scientist must do… He put forward his Gaia hypothesis in 1969. It still stands nearly 40 years later. It has not been disproven to the satisfaction of the scientific community. It sheds light on much natural phenomena. And continues to shed new light.

He first started warning about planetary warming from CO2 in 1979. It took a long time for him to be taken seriously. Now, his scientific predictions point to chain reactions occurring with respect to the level of CO2 that is currently in the atmosphere. ie. primarily the ocean releases a huge amount of CO2 at a certain temperature. And he cannot see how this can be mitigated at this point of time.

Then, in his scientific career, he has studied rocks, and what could be read about the distant past as regards the composition of the atmosphere, and the correlating conditions of life, from these rocks. His ‘ages of Gaia’ gives a fascinating history of the eath’s evolution from it’s birth to present day based on this work with rocks.

Now, in only one period of the earth, prior to our times, did he find that CO2 levels were as high as they are today. (in fact they were about three times higher). From his study he found that also at this point in time, the earth was so hot that life was only feasible around the poles. It was too hot for life elsewhere.

So, in essence, all of Lovelock’s life of research points to the facts that (a) we are heading towards a tipping point where the ocean will release vast quantities of CO2, and (b) there has only been one period in the earths history where CO2 levels were as high as they are now, and this correlated to a time when the earth was too hot for life apart from the arctic regions.

Now, maybe many people think that his conclusions sound ‘unscientific’, or extrordinary, or whatever. But the fact is that he has spent his life in research, building up a big picture of this, and all of those researches suppport those conclusions.

And if you look back through scientific history, you’ll note that science is at it’s best when it reveals things that seem incredible to the masses living at that time. From what I’ve read of Lovelock, he seems to be carved out of the same stuff as a Galileo. That’s just me though. And I hope he’s wrong of course (though my own researches seem to point to this being just wishful thinking). And he hopes he’s wrong too, I know.

Are his books accessible and if so which would you recommend to get a descent summary of his current thinking?

I’d recommend his Ages of Gaia. You won’t be able to put it down.

This looks like it is published in 1995, is it still current?