Climate change - Canny's bailout?

It was first published in 1988 I think. The 1995 edition is updated. New chapters etc. But this book best explains Lovelock’s thought, and his Gaia theory. And what Lovelock is about. It is current because the Gaia theory is still current. And the Gaia theory is what Lovelock is about.

He published ‘The revenge of Gaia’ much more recently. But this book does not get across the essence of Lovelock and Gaia as well as the other book. It is more about plugging in data that has been generated by climatologists into his Gaia model, and desperately trying to get the message across that what he is putting forward must be taken seriously. And painting the doomsday scenario.

You will be better able to judge of Lovelock and his theory from the earlier book imo. And it is much more enjoyable and interesting.

Thanks. I’ll order it asap.

PS I believe everything I read until I read a better argument, does this mean I will have to throw out my stash of beans and ammo and replace it with snow shoes and a train of huskys?

I disagree. You still have not referenced any of your claims above.

:laughing: Keep the beans and ammo, start looking at buying up land in the arctic and antarctic circles. Try and identify the spots where you might put a new city once the ice is gone. Likely another couple of decades before things properly kick off. Or maybe sooner?

for the mainstream view

Global Warming: The Complete Briefing (2004) by John Houghton (who chaired IPCC)

more pessimistic

The Revenge of Gaia (2006) by James Lovelock

basics of climate science

Physics of Climate Peixoto & Oort (1991)

how dangerous fcuked up mathematical models fooled 99% of financial risk managers,

The Black Swan: The impact of the highly improbable (2007) Nassim Taleb

Seems like the Northern Irish Minister for the Environment interviewed by Jon Snow on C4 news tonight is not entirely convinced by climate change and tax policies that have ensured :angry:

Sounds like it’s nothing new for Mr Wilson

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7599810.stm

Black swans on a global climate scale take hundreds of years - human society will adapt, at a lower cost than if we tried to prevent them (as if it’s possible to prevent a black swan!).

Oh and ‘Gaia’ (god I hate that hippy word) always seemed to me merely to be an interesting philosophical concept rather than a proper scientific theory.

Its just as well he stopped his looking back over the history of the planet when he found the bit that confirmed his research isn’t it ?

I mean after all, he might have gone back even further & found that the planet was a bubbling molten mass billions of year ago & tried to ban fire as a result , just to stop it happening again like :angry:

Tell me, the cause of all this CO2, what was it, was early man prone to driving SUVs ?

Or did these little events date back to Pangea when all land mass was condensed into one blob; you know when the ration of land mass to sea was completely different & the planet was totally & utterly different in just about every way to the way it is today ?

Well I suggest that if you’re going to offer an opinion on the failings of Lovelock you make a slight effort at informing that opinion. Thing is, if you did make some small effort you wouldn’t be posting such mis-informed drivel.

I’m not the one comparing him to Galileo.

I’m just pointing out that looking at historical data & cherrypicking the bits that agree with your theory isn’t science; its politics. Or perhaps in the case of Lovelock its just good publicity prior to flogging another book ?

The nutter on the corner with the ‘The End Is Nigh’ sandwich board will, someday, be right. But don’t expect me to take them seriously on the off chance that today is the day.

Science hurt my head. :blush:

Learn something about science (rather than just aligning yourself with what you deem to be the conservative ‘scientific’ view without applying any real thought or effort to anything). Then, learn something about Lovelock and his work. You’re nobody to be casting aspersions as to the integrity of the man.

Here ya go:

U. S. Senate Minority Report.
More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims:
Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008

epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
(PDF file)

Some quotes from the report:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can
speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that
man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely
upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface
system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to
receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190
studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years."

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical
chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t
have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on
scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist
Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported
International Year of the Planet.

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future
warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi
University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace
member.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a
fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.”

  • Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo.
    Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar
    interaction with the Earth.

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of
scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government
Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of
NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact,
as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide
scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical
and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers
higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large
number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished
without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the
U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian
geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

just out of curiosity and assuming that Lovelock is correct - can anything even be done or are we just f*cked?

Ha! Now you have to resort to the classic creationist canard of quote mining - let’s pick through the totality of scientific literature and pick out any sentences that look like they might support our position.

This is not a “U. S. Senate Minority Report.” It’s a report from the office of Jim Inhofe a member of US senate Minority party (the Republican party). Most people would probably recognise him as the guy who claims climate change is actually a hoax, a deliberate lie propogated by scientists worldwide in exchange for money.

Of the names on that list some are duplicated, others will also be found on lists opposing evolution and practically none of them are practicing scientists in any area even relating to climate science.

Maybe you should try engaging in some of that vaunted “critical thinking” you were talking about earlier instead of reflexively jumping on anything that has even the appearance of supporting your preconceptions.

Sure, science depends upon the ‘community’ of scientists debating things among themselves and reaching a shared understanding or consensus on the meaning of the phenomena and facts that they uncover. (And quickly root out biased facts and other bad methodology when they occur). It should also be recognised, that the system is not perfect, and like democracy, there are inherent hierarchial structures and dogmatic views. eg. Some big shot professor has a pet theory on which his career has been built. Then some outsider comes along and threatens to steal his thunder. - Often the outsider will be ignored by the establishment.

Lovelock is such an outsider, threatening the establishment view. Thus many try and paint him as a crank. Quite easy to do considering what he is trying to communicate. It should be remembered though that when he worked *in *the establishment, early in his career, he was absolutely brilliant, and much feted.

As to solutions, the first step to any solution is properly framing and acknowledging the problem (similar to this economic problem! :frowning: ). This is what Lovelock is currently trying to do - to get people to acknowledge the scale of the problem, and weigh up the evidence suggesting this scale (no matter if the conclusion that this evidence points towards sounds ‘far-fetched’ to most people). Lovelock is also an inventor. - One solution that has been proposed that he was involved in was ‘ocean-pipes’. But it needed a lot more work to see if it would work. There’s no political will there. All this political will is currently occupied with fucking around with windmills, solar panels, and carbon credits at the moment. Not a million miles away from the current fucking around with ‘re-capitalisations’ (more properly called socialised pre-emptive partial debt liquidations) and deflationary cost cutting (which makes Ireland’s total 1.67 trillion euro debts far worse, among a million other bad deflationary consequences) etc.

+1 nicely put.

I have contempt for the fatwah being waged against people on the fringe of the mainstream view of AGW. Those who think there is not much of a problem are demonised as “deniers” while those who see worse or differently are “flat earth cranks” or “nuts”.

This is something nasty and fascistic about this.

There is a lot to learn from Lovelock & Lomberg about the sheer stupidity of many core green beliefs.

There is fantastic analytical work being done by so-called “deniers”. e.g. take Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit.

We need these people. Attempts to silence and marginalise them by ignoramus green apparachiks like friends of the earth are despicable and dangerous IMO.

guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2 … matechange

I am definitively not trying top discredit the man (I have now ordered his book) but early brilliance followed by nut job ideas is not uncommon, probably two sides of the same coin. Think the ginger foppish one.