Man Of Integrity Speaks On Climate Change

[snowflux]

Geological history actually shows CO2 levels follow temperature. Not the other way round.

Of course if you engage in this debate you ought to have known this already - as you also should have known the numbers I quoted in my earlier post. They are basic climate science.

Yeah, and why, despite Newton's theory saying otherwise, do stones fall faster than feathers? This is basic observation. Why do physicists ignore this?

And don't give me any of those air-resistance excuses. Explain it as slowly and carefully as you like, I will simply ignore you and keep asking the same question until you finally give up and admit that gravity is just one big SCAM!!!!!!!!

[bogbrush]

You are quite right above Lovelock on one level in that he thinks renewables, at the industrial scale, are rather pointless given our monumental energy needs. However, you appear to be missing his central point. He doesn't believe that AGW is the result of natural geological events on this occasion and he makes the key point that when it has occurred in the past as a result of non-human forces, it has nearly always resulted in a mass extinction event. Instead he makes a direct case for why it is humans who are the primary cause on this occasion. He simply thinks we are too stupid, too ignorant and, for the majority of humanity, too helpless as individuals to be able to do anything about it, even assuming we have not left it too late already. As it happens, Lovelock believes it is already too late, largely as a consequence of the world being mostly populated by people like yourself Mr Bogbrush.

I happen to agree with him.

No Steve, I missed no points there. I didn't argue the toss about cause, I simply make reference to one or two things that some of us on the other side have been saying for ages; that science has been corrupted by the vast money flowing into this area; that the renewable industry is a fraud; that if it's true then nothing can be done and we may as well finish off the remaining oil because all the peak-oilist say there isn't much anyway.

You seem to be missing his point when you speculate "even assuming we have not left it too late already", because he says categorically that it is.

[bogbrush]

and whats that got to do with housing? Take your personal agendas to off topic please.

Since when did you become a Mod? Take your personal control urges where they belong, please.

[bogbrush]

Is this the man who said he felt saving the world was idiocy because the outcome was inevitable, humans were too stupid to do anything about it, and 7/8ths of the population will die out?

Should I presume from your praise of his integrity that you agree? Or are you merely spinning selectively and out of context (thereby showing a lack of integrity)?

f you have some issues with Professor lovelock I suggest you take them up with him. If you can point to my selective quoting then great, but you''ll find I've simply directed you to the interview.

I understand that it must be upsetting to see yourself and others exposed as naive buyers of the latest super-scam, but if you can focus on the reality, see things a little more in the round, it'll stand you in good stead when the next one comes around.

[I_Claudius]

f you have some issues with Professor lovelock I suggest you take them up with him. If you can point to my selective quoting then great, but you''ll find I've simply directed you to the interview.

to be fair your thread title describes him as a "Man of integrity" and you also stated:

If more people spoke like this guy and stopped trying to use anything they can to control other people there'd be a rational debate without the emotion.

Certainly sounds like an endorsement for someone who has been (and continues to be) one of the biggest promoters of what you then go on to call a "super scam" and who has campaigned for decades to 'control people'

Not sure where you see the integrity in that.

[R K]

You worry too much.

We're all going to die - get over it.

[MarkG]

Why would these warming alarmists put out data saying that the artic is super warm compared to usual, unless it is to put some vim back into their failed theory? Alas for them someone is looking at the ice, and it doesnt match what they say the temperature is.

To be fair, the temperature here in the middle of Canada is a few degrees warmer than 'normal' after a winter that was significantly colder than 'normal'.

The warmers' problem with this is that a localised warm spot tells you nothing about _GLOBAL_ temperature changes, and that they've been claiming for years that EVIL GLOBAL WARMING has been causing ice to disappear when it's more due to wind and ocean currents moving the ice around.

Either way, the theory is ********, the data is ******** and the majority of people finally seem to have woken up to this fact. It's a shame that Lovelock will pop off before 'global warming' goes the way of pholgiston.

[slurms mackenzie]

Since when did you become a Mod? Take your personal control urges where they belong, please.

I'm not i'm just bored of the clarksons on here, talking about anything but housing.

I won't be the first person on a thread ever to point out it has nothing to do with the forum topic.

<<edit oh it's been moved to off topic>>

Have a nice life.

[shipbuilder]

This should be helpful to some confused people -

James Lovelock Wiki

A read of 'The Revenge of Gaia' should also clear up any misunderstandings about his position on global warming.

[bogbrush]

to be fair your thread title describes him as a "Man of integrity" and you also stated:

Certainly sounds like an endorsement for someone who has been (and continues to be) one of the biggest promoters of what you then go on to call a "super scam" and who has campaigned for decades to 'control people'

Not sure where you see the integrity in that.

Oh sure, he believes in it. That's fine, to believe in something.

Thing is, he does so for honest reasons; he's not made a whore of himself over it and neither does he do it to control everyone.

If you read the article I say he's a man of integrity. Integrity doesn't mean faultless.

[Guest anorthosite]

Geological history actually shows CO2 levels follow temperature. Not the other way round.

Classic bit of deceit there - you're assuming the CO2 is the cause of the warming.

[Pick It Down]

Classic bit of deceit there - you're assuming the CO2 is the cause of the warming.

No I'm not as CO2 follows temperature changes, it doesn't lead them. This is due to ocean outgassing.

You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.

[King Stromba]

Science is no longer about a quest for truth but about big business and marketing.

The honest scientists are out spent and out reported.

[Cicero]

Science is no longer about a quest for truth but about big business and marketing.

The honest scientists are out spent and out reported.

Yep, vested interests and charlatans are in every sphere of industry.

[Guest anorthosite]

No I'm not as CO2 follows temperature changes, it doesn't lead them. This is due to ocean outgassing.

You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.

I'm not disagreeing with that. However, in all these cases, CO2 has not been the driver of the climate change. Your point is both irrelevant and misleading, probably intentionally.

[Pick It Down]

I'm not disagreeing with that. However, in all these cases, CO2 has not been the driver of the climate change. Your point is both irrelevant and misleading, probably intentionally.

What would I have to gain by doing that?

There are times in the historical record when CO2 has varied due to for instance a volcanic eruption. Temperatures didn't respond. The causation is only one way, from temperature to CO2. Climate science has not yet explained this.

[Guest anorthosite]

There are times in the historical record when CO2 has varied due to for instance a volcanic eruption.

Enough CO2 to change the climate from a volcano? I wonder how much ash that would produce as well?

Temperatures didn't respond. The causation is only one way, from temperature to CO2. Climate science has not yet explained this.

You're not comparing like for like. And climate science has explained it.

[cells]

Let a thousand reactors bloom.

[snowflux]

What would I have to gain by doing that?

There are times in the historical record when CO2 has varied due to for instance a volcanic eruption. Temperatures didn't respond. The causation is only one way, from temperature to CO2. Climate science has not yet explained this.

Global temperatures normally fall for a couple of years after a volcanic eruption due to the dust that they put out that reduces solar irradiation. Their CO2 output is insignificant compared to that of mankind. You can see this in in GISS temperature record:

The V's are major volcanic eruptions. Notice how the global temperature falls for a couple of years after each eruption.

I think you'll find, Pick It Down, that climate science is fully aware of the effects of volcanic outgassing. The scientists involved have been working in the field for many years rather than simply regurgitating whatever ******** Whatsup..blah..com comes up with.

[bogbrush]

Oooh those colours look scary. Really..... red. Is that what it's all going to look like after we've Globally Warmed?

[davemb]

oh yes, nice pretty colour charts. but it's all a con . there is no global warming. all you have do do is go outside, today, and see how long you can stand the cold before you have to come back inside. then you will see you are being conned.

if anything we could be going back to a new ice age.

[talksalot81]

Science is no longer about a quest for truth but about big business and marketing.

The honest scientists are out spent and out reported.

Spot on and it is because of how the money is assigned. He who shouts loudest, makes the most spectacular claims and provides the prettiest pictures will get the attention of the moneymen who don't know enough to see through any BS.

Unfortunately, if you don't play the game, someone else will. So what is a scientist to do?

[blankster]

We can't save the planet and neither can we destroy it, not even is we still use disposable plastic bags!!

To my mind, the need to move to renewable energy is not about saving the planet, it's about saving modern civilisation. At the moment we're largely dependent on finite resources such as oil, natural gas, coal and even uranium. These will run out or become scarce possibly within decades. Either we wait until finite energy sources are gone and we panic, or we begin the move to renewables - wind, solar, tidal, wave - together with increasing energy efficiency now (as is happening) and have a smooth transition to the post-oil age.

Anticipating the skeptical responses:

'But do you know how many large wind turbines you'd need to replace one nuclear power station?' ..........Yes, between 400 and 500

'But what when the wind isn't blowing?' .........Think of the fossil fuels that is saved when the wind IS blowing, which is most of the time out at sea around off-shore windfarms.

'Would you want to live next to a large wind turbine?'..........No, but nobody lives out in the North Sea.

'Solar panels are useless at night'..........Yes, but so is natural sunlight but we don't usually keep all the curtains shut and lights on during the day - we take advantage of daylight!

'But you can get hydrogen and even uranium from seawater'..........Yes, but it takes more energy to extract them than you get back in use.

Science is no longer about a quest for truth but about big business and marketing. The honest scientists are out spent and out reported.

I've visited a couple of top sci-tech universities recently and I can tell you that from what I saw the quest for truth is alive and kicking. That's not to say that vested interests don't have 'tame' scientists, or that some fields of scientific research, e.g. climate change, have not become vested interests in themselves, but generally scientists are people who want to know the truth about the world around them.

[fluffy666]

Spot on and it is because of how the money is assigned. He who shouts loudest, makes the most spectacular claims and provides the prettiest pictures will get the attention of the moneymen who don't know enough to see through any BS.

Unfortunately, if you don't play the game, someone else will. So what is a scientist to do?

In the earth sciences, the big moneymen are the oil companies. If you can put forward a valid scientific research program demonstrating AGW to be false, you will have as much funding as you could possibly want.

[Kurt Barlow]

Have to laugh at all the renewables bs.. when we have nuclear reactors. 1000 MW to 1500 MW reactors. We know they work, we know the costs of them, they are baseload electricity.

50-60 Areva EPR reactors would provide all the electricity Britain uses today. That is 15 plants with 4 reactors at each plant to power the whole country.

I've researched energy for years, following the development in most of the big nations. The choice every nation faces is Coal, Nuclear, Natural Gas and Hydro. If you want to provide industrial scale levels of power to millions of people those are the options.

How long would this grand plan take? World wide capacity to build single piece reactors like the EPR is currently 4 per year. That might be 6-8 by 2013.