"Big" Climate Change Advocate Says It Was A Mistake!

[Lefty]

British environmental expert James Lovelock now admits he was an “alarmist” regarding global warming — and says Al Gore was too.
Lovelock previously worked for NASA and became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism. In 2007 Time magazine named Lovelock one of its “Heroes of the Environment,” and he won the Geological Society of London’s Wollaston Medal in 2006 for his writings on the Gaia theory.
That year he wrote an article in a British newspaper asserting that “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”
But in an interview this week with MSNBC, Lovelock said a book he is now writing will reflect his new opinion that global warming has not occurred as he had expected.
“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing,” he said. “We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened.


http://us.mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=ccmrdkr65atm8

[boxcar]

I posted this story on the "Science is Settled..." thread on 4/24. But this is a big story. This guy was a huge AGW player and even bigger alarmist at one time.

Boxcar

[bigmack]

“before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”
Gee, he thinks that statement from his book is just a bit over the top?

I know tons more than I did before I started debating hcap on GW and am not surprised more & more propaganda scientists are coming out and expressing at least some level of honesty on the subject.

Mike Mann running around with tree rings and a pile of nerds with computer models were just plain wrong. NOT an eye opener.

I was involved in a 'discussion' with some Warm Mongers over the weekend. Because I've read more than your average bear I was able to sway a few opinions as I have facts to back me up.

Again, we'll all agree, polluting our environment is not something we want to do. Ascribing global temperatures to the incredibly low amount of CO2 that us horrible humans spew, is nuts.

If you want to get a fairly comprehensive look at what the whole dealio was about, so you can at least have a cursory understanding of 'the other side', take an hour out of your life sometime to watch this.

Ov0WwtPcALE

[boxcar]

It's all about wealth redistribution, Mack. Global Taxation. No stinkin' hour needed. :D

Boxcar

[bigmack]

It's all about wealth redistribution, Mack. Global Taxation. No stinkin' hour needed.
But how would you know it was she that started the entire politicization of this nonsense if you don't spend that stinkin' hour?

Nevermind, you just found out with this post. Gawd, i'm informative.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Users/Help/screenshots/2010/12/12/1292178295764/MARGARET-THATCHER---1983-007.jpg

[Tom]

Hey, haven't you guys heard?
The debate is over.

Now that the FACTS are coming in. :lol:

[Steve 'StatMan']

In 2007 Time magazine named Lovelock one of its “Heroes of the Environment,” and he won the Geological Society of London’s Wollaston Medal in 2006 for his writings on the Gaia theory.
That year he wrote an article in a British newspaper asserting that “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”


Well, I'll agree he's got the bolded part right. About 9 billion people in the world about now, and unless science makes great progress in this century, more than 8 billion of us will be dead by then due to all of the regular, past and future causes of death. Global warming doesn't need to have anything to do with it.

Glad he's better at realizing the true reality now, and that global warming isn't really what ones making fame and fortune off of it say it is.

[mostpost]

You guys are amazing. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists know that climate change (or global warming) is a scientific fact. And they know that man is a big part of that.
Now we have one guy who says that he exaggerated the timeline and maybe the effects. That one guy, James Lovelock, is a generalist, more known as an inventor than a meteorologist. What he did not say is that GW or CC, if you prefer does not exist. Only that the effects may be slower than anticipated.

Yet you take the words of that one guy and think that they overturn years of scientific data. Well go ahead, if it makes you feel better. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[badcompany]

That Al Gore was a proponent of Global Warming was evidence enough for me that it was bullsh!t.

Gore is the guy at the track who you hope is rooting AGAINST your horse.

[Lefty]

Al Gore made over 150 million with his global warming bull. The funny thing when it snowed everywhere he went to preach, they had to change the term to climate change. So if it's warm, it's climate change. If it's cold, it's climate change. :bang: :bang: :bang:

[badcompany]

Al Gore made over 150 million with his global warming bull. The funny thing when it snowed everywhere he went to preach, they had to change the term to climate change. So if it's warm, it's climate change. If it's cold, it's climate change. :bang: :bang: :bang:

With the left, it's impossible to falsify a prediction.

The stimulus didn't work because it wasn't big enough.

Every failed socialist state wasn't really socialist.

Welfare state failures and unsustainable public sectors are a result of tax collection not being aggressive enough.

[hcap]

You guys are amazing. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists know that climate change (or global warming) is a scientific fact. And they know that man is a big part of that.
Now we have one guy who says that he exaggerated the timeline and maybe the effects. That one guy, James Lovelock, is a generalist, more known as an inventor than a meteorologist. What he did not say is that GW or CC, if you prefer does not exist. Only that the effects may be slower than anticipated.

Yet you take the words of that one guy and think that they overturn years of scientific data. Well go ahead, if it makes you feel better. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:Good luck. Discussing this rationally with these guys is a total waste of time.

BTW, many more of the deniers of AGW have changed their minds than these guys will care to admit. And of much more importance scientifically Here is a major turn around by a respected group who were enlisted by the republicans to PROVE their skeptical views. Guess what? After a full scientific study, the evidence did just the opposite. Destroyed the skeptics case and got 100% behind the overwhelming case for AGW.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/30/richard-muller-global-warming_n_1066029.html

Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real


WASHINGTON — A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.

The study of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of "Climategate," a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.

Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.

He said he went even further back, studying readings from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. His ultimate finding of a warming world, to be presented at a conference Monday, is no different from what mainstream climate scientists have been saying for decades.

What's different, and why everyone from opinion columnists to "The Daily Show" is paying attention is who is behind the study.

One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the tea party. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse gas emissions.




http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html

The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism There were good reasons for doubt, until now.

Without good answers to all these complaints, global-warming skepticism seems sensible. But now let me explain why you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer.

Over the last two years, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project has looked deeply at all the issues raised above. I chaired our group, which just submitted four detailed papers on our results to peer-reviewed journals. We have now posted these papers online at www.BerkeleyEarth.org to solicit even more scrutiny.

Our work covers only land temperature—not the oceans—but that's where warming appears to be the greatest. Robert Rohde, our chief scientist, obtained more than 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world. Many of the records were short in duration, and to use them Mr. Rohde and a team of esteemed scientists and statisticians developed a new analytical approach that let us incorporate fragments of records. By using data from virtually all the available stations, we avoided data-selection bias. Rather than try to correct for the discontinuities in the records, we simply sliced the records where the data cut off, thereby creating two records from one.......

.....We discovered that about one-third of the world's temperature stations have recorded cooling temperatures, and about two-thirds have recorded warming. The two-to-one ratio reflects global warming. The changes at the locations that showed warming were typically between 1-2ºC, much greater than the IPCC's average of 0.64ºC.

[bigmack]

..We discovered that about one-third of the world's temperature stations have recorded cooling temperatures, and about two-thirds have recorded warming.
Hey Puddin'Head - Do us all a big solid...

Succinctly (No smoke. No mirrors. No graphs) answer (with percentages & credible links) the evidence of your comrades claim in bold.

The overwhelming majority of climate scientists know that climate change (or global warming) is a scientific fact. And they know that man is a big part of that.

Show us this "big part of that" that DumDum speaks of.

In other words, quantify for us the effect man has on global temperatures.

MostPosty is under the impression your camp knows the extent man affects earths temperatures. :lol:

(This I gotta see)

[badcompany]

Hey Puddin'Head - Do us all a big solid...

Succinctly (No smoke. No mirrors. No graphs) answer (with percentages & credible links) the evidence of your comrades claim in bold.



Show us this "big part of that" that DumDum speaks of.

In other words, quantify for us the effect man has on global temperatures.

MostPosty is under the impression your camp knows the extent man affects earths temperatures. :lol:

(This I gotta see)

This is from the Muller's testimony to Congress. It directly contradicts the 1.6 degree figure in the Huffpo piece HCAP posted. In addition, Muller offers no evidence of the man made part.

The gist of the testimony is that Muller is going to address the bias concerns of the current data. In other words, he's gonna cherry pick some stats that support his conclusion and wants congress to spend more money on this nonsense.

And they wonder why people are skeptical.

___________

Human caused global warming is somewhat smaller. According to the most recent IPCC report (2007), the human component became apparent only after 1957, and it amounts to “most” of the 0.7 degree rise since then. Let’s assume the human-caused warming is 0.6 degrees.

The magnitude of this temperature rise is a key scientific and public policy concern. A 0.2 degree uncertainty puts the human component between 0.4 and 0.8 degrees – a factor of two uncertainty. Policy depends on this number. It needs to be improved.

http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/muller-testimony-31-march-2011.pdf

[mostpost]

Hey Puddin'Head - Do us all a big solid...

Succinctly (No smoke. No mirrors. No graphs) answer (with percentages & credible links) the evidence of your comrades claim in bold.



Show us this "big part of that" that DumDum speaks of.

In other words, quantify for us the effect man has on global temperatures.

MostPosty is under the impression your camp knows the extent man affects earths temperatures. :lol:

(This I gotta see)
Why don't you do us a big solid and look it up yourself. And stop trying to distract with stuff that has been discussed ad infinitum. And stop asking for credible links when you know the only links you consider credible are hot air and big government.

[mostpost]

Al Gore made over 150 million with his global warming bull. The funny thing when it snowed everywhere he went to preach, they had to change the term to climate change. So if it's warm, it's climate change. If it's cold, it's climate change. :bang: :bang: :bang:

If gore made $150M on climate change, that is irrelevant to the debate. The overwhelming proof is on the side of the Global Warming advocates. All the peer reviewed research comes from them. The deniers are all financed by conservative think tanks and oil companies. And even some of those are now conceding that GW is real. (See hcap's post above.)

And that bit about, "snowed everywhere he went to preach" obviously not true.
But very typical of you cons. You don't get the difference between anecdotal evidence and empirical evidence; between long term and short term. It's the trend!!!

[Valuist]

I'm still waiting for Gore's explanation of carbon emissions' role in the Ice Age.

[mostpost]

This is from the Muller's testimony to Congress. It directly contradicts the 1.6 degree figure in the Huffpo piece HCAP posted. In addition, Muller offers no evidence of the man made part.

The gist of the testimony is that Muller is going to address the bias concerns of the current data. In other words, he's gonna cherry pick some stats that support his conclusion and wants congress to spend more money on this nonsense.

And they wonder why people are skeptical.

___________

Human caused global warming is somewhat smaller. According to the most recent IPCC report (2007), the human component became apparent only after 1957, and it amounts to “most” of the 0.7 degree rise since then. Let’s assume the human-caused warming is 0.6 degrees.

The magnitude of this temperature rise is a key scientific and public policy concern. A 0.2 degree uncertainty puts the human component between 0.4 and 0.8 degrees – a factor of two uncertainty. Policy depends on this number. It needs to be improved.

http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/muller-testimony-31-march-2011.pdf
You neglected to mention that your link is to testimony given in March of 2011-more than a year ago-and that Muller clearly stated that it was preliminary data and needed to be checked for accuracy. Apparently, in so doing, Muller and his group came to the conclusion that this Global Warming thing was not a myth. :eek:

[Tom]

Maybe it is caused by public farting.
(See other thread)

[mostpost]

Maybe it is caused by public farting.
(See other thread)
You're being funny, but isn't there a hypothesis that methane released in cow flatulence is a contributing factor?

[Tom]

Yes, and nuts like you are buying it! :lol:

[hcap]

Hey Puddin'Head - Do us all a big solid...

In other words, quantify for us the effect man has on global temperatures.

MostPosty is under the impression your camp knows the extent man affects earths temperatures. :lol:

(This I gotta see)You know Mac how many times you and I have discussed this before. I have demonstrated it many times, but here I was responding to the so-called "BIG Retraction" of this one non climatologist posted both by Lefty and boxhead. Mostpost has already questioned his credentials.

Meanwhile, The Berkeley group, a much more qualified team has presented evidence that the contention of the skeptics, that the inaccuracy of land based temperature stations is totally wrong, is in fact totally a MYTH.

That is the major takeaway of their study.

Actually, Mac, you yourself brought up this as "proof" that the 97% of climatologists worldwide are lying and it was only a matter of time until the main proponent of this theory of faulty earth readings proposed by Anthony Watts, a TV METEOROLOGIST, dazzled the rest of the scientific community with as you say "A SOLID". And convinced us all AL Gore is indeed fat and a liar.

.....We discovered that about one-third of the world's temperature stations have recorded cooling temperatures, and about two-thirds have recorded warming. The two-to-one ratio reflects global warming. The changes at the locations that showed warming were typically between 1-2ºC, much greater than the IPCC's average of 0.64ºC.

[bigmack]

Meanwhile, The Berkeley group, a much more qualified team
Speaking of qualified, try finding someone more qualified than the repeatedly mentioned, Dr. Richard Lindzen, and we both know his feelings on you propaganda alarmists.

Look, I've seen your kind before, sitting in a safe-house trying to 'snap' a Moonie out of their trance. I get it, you're comfortably numb buying all that crap science and you'll never have an open mind regarding this subject. You're simply a useful cog. No big deal, doesn't matter to me one bit.

I have no interest in debating people with extreme tunnel vision.

[badcompany]

Speaking of qualified, try finding someone more qualified than the repeatedly mentioned, Dr. Richard Lindzen, and we both know his feelings on you propaganda alarmists.

Look, I've seen your kind before, sitting in a safe-house trying to 'snap' a Moonie out of their trance. I get it, you're comfortably numb buying all that crap science and you'll never have an open mind regarding this subject. You're simply a useful cog. No big deal, doesn't matter to me one bit.

I have no interest in debating people with extreme tunnel vision.

This is also from HCAP'S link:

"Prior groups at NOAA, NASA, and in the UK (HadCRU) estimate about a 1.2 degree C land temperature rise from the early 1900s to the present. This 1.2 degree rise is what we call global warming. Their work is

excellent, and the Berkeley Earth project strives to build on it.

Human caused global warming is somewhat smaller. According to the most recent IPCC report (2007), the human component became apparent only after 1957, and it amounts to “most” of the 0.7 degree rise since then. Let’s assume the human-caused warming is 0.6 degrees."


------------------

So, before 1957, the Global Warming was "natural" but after, humans were responsible for "most" of it.

Does that mean that "natural" Global Warming has stopped?

And who is to say that temperatures are supposed to remain absolutely constant in the first place?

All of this is so vague, yet these guys act as though it's an absolute certainty.

[bigmack]

And who is to say that temperatures are supposed to remain absolutely constant in the first place?
hcap & his ilk think we're as stupid as they are. His memory is shot out, or he'd remember the Scare du Jour back in the mid 70's.

Of course global temperatures are always in flux. They won't rest until they can pin any flux to evil man.

http://socioecohistory.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/time-magazine-april-1977.jpg
April 1977

[hcap]

Sorry guys. I have posted answers to all of these objections a dozen times. Pages and pages dealing with ALL of this. Just thought I would stop by and respond to the latest nonsense..

[pandy]

I remember those "Ice Age" headlines in the NY Times, Time Magazine, etc., in the 1970's and even then I was skeptical, and I'm skeptical about global warming because even if the earth is warming now, that doesn't mean that the climate won't reverse itself and 30 years from now the headlines will once again read "Ice Age" coming.

[badcompany]

I remember those "Ice Age" headlines in the NY Times, Time Magazine, etc., in the 1970's and even then I was skeptical, and I'm skeptical about global warming because even if the earth is warming now, that doesn't mean that the climate won't reverse itself and 30 years from now the headlines will once again read "Ice Age" coming.

Or the temperature will stay the same and HCAP and his science class pals will be promoting their "Global Stagnancy" theory.;)

[pandy]

I remember a few years ago, I believe it was 2005, when they had a terrible Hurricane season in Florida, many "expert" Meteorologists predicted that due to the warming of the ocean that there would be as many as 10 years in a row of similar bad Hurricane seasons. Instead there hasn't been a bad hurricane season since 2005.

They can't predict the weather 24 hours in advance accurately, I'm amazed that so many people think that they can predict a warming trend that's supposed to last forever.

[Tom]

I remember attending the funeral for Lake Erie, and a couple of the Finger lakes.

This is what, the 30th anniversary of Ted Danson declaring the end of the oceans withing 10 years?

I remember reading the Population Bomb in the 60's, while I still had room to use my arms to open the book.


The sky is falling....the sky is falling.

Libs NEED to hold on to crap like this - they NEED to believe only THEY can save us all.

Libs lie.

[hcap]

I remember those "Ice Age" headlines in the NY Times, Time Magazine, etc., in the 1970's and even then I was skeptical, and I'm skeptical about global warming because even if the earth is warming now, that doesn't mean that the climate won't reverse itself and 30 years from now the headlines will once again read "Ice Age" coming.I have already debunked this a number of times. The Media is responsible for those stories of an imminent "ice age" not the majority of the scientific community

http://www.aiacny.org/2009/June/GLOBAL%20WARMING%20AND%20THE%20ARCHITECT-%20June%2009.pdf

[bigmack]

Libs NEED to hold on to crap like this - they NEED to believe only THEY can save us all.
Bingo, Tommy. hcap waltzes around here cutting & pasting graph after graph that just went up and thinks he's proving anything. "We need more graphs that go up at the end" they would bark down the greedy scientists assembly line.

Chump scientists were running a scam and hcap is at the front of the line for sucka's.

f5Vz3i0j_J0