Science vs Beliefs

[Mike Pass]

From Mail Online
Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change | Mail Online

'I made a mistake': Gaia theory scientist James Lovelock admits he was 'alarmist' about the impact of climate change

British scientist admits he had 'extrapolated too far' in earlier book
Claims other environmental commentators such as Al Gore did the same

By Lydia Warren

PUBLISHED: 22:12, 23 April 2012 | UPDATED: 07:51, 24 April 2012

Read more: Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Environmental scientist James Lovelock, renowned for his terrifying predictions of climate change's deadly impact on the planet, has gone back on his previous claims, admitting they were 'alarmist'.

The 92-year-old Briton, who also developed the Gaia theory of the Earth as a single organism, has said climate change is still happening - just not as quickly as he once warned.

He added that other environmental commentators, such as former vice president Al Gore, are also guilty of exaggerating their arguments.

The admission comes as a devastating blow to proponents of climate change who regard Lovelock as a powerful figurehead.

Five years ago, he had claimed: '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 with msnbc.com, he admitted: 'I made a mistake.'

He said: 'The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing,' he told '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.

'The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world.

'[The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising - carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.'

After two books - Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth Is Fighting Back and How We Can Still Save Humanity, and The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning: Enjoy It While You Can - he is writing a third.
Now he admits: 'We will have global warming, but it’s been deferred a bit.'

A long-time advocate of nuclear power, he suggested we should cut back on burning fossil fuels.

Read more: Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
The independent scientist, who is based in south west England and has conducted research at Yale and Harvard universities, has been a respected member of the academic community for decades.

He discovered the presence of harmful chemicals - CFCs - in the atmosphere in the 1960s.

In 2007, Time magazine named him as one 13 leaders and visionaries in an article on Heroes of the Environment.

In 1990, he became a CBE, presented to him by Queen Elizabeth II, and in 2003, she awarded him a Companion of Honour for his achievements in science.

Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at the U.K.’s Met Office Hadley Centre, told msnbc.com he agreed Lovelock had been too alarmist.

But he added that Lovelock has 'had a lot of good ideas and interesting thoughts'.



WHAT IS GAIA THEORY?

James Lovelock developed the Gaia theory in the 1960s while working with NASA.
It claims that all of the organic and inorganic components of Earth are closely integrated to form a single and self-regulating system.
This living system has automatically controlled global temperature, atmospheric content, oxygen, ocean salinity, and other factors.
In summary, it posits 'life maintains conditions suitable for its own survival'.

 

[Robert May Eng.]

Boffin on the box said this morning that they now make reference to the planets disturbed weather system. The millions of tons of carbon that we are chucking into the atmosphere are not helping this "disturbance of the weather systems". Its all beyond me cos I cant fink , but I can lift heavy things
Global Carbon Emissions | CO2 Now | Current CO2
Bob

 

[Keith]

Science vs Beiiefs eh?

I think this covers it..

On the first day, God created the dog and said, "Sit all day by the door of
your house and bark at anyone who comes in or walks past. For this, I will
give you a life span of twenty years."

The dog said, "That's a long time to be barking. How about only ten years
and I'll give you back the other ten?"

And God saw it was good.

On the second day, God created the monkey and said, "Entertain people, do
tricks, and make them laugh. For this, I'll give you a twenty-year life
span."

The monkey said, "Monkey tricks for twenty years? That's a pretty long time
to perform. How about I give you back ten like the dog did?"

And God, again saw it was good.

On the third day, God created the cow and said, "You must go into the field
with the farmer all day long and suffer under the sun, have calves and give
milk to support the farmer's family. For this, I will give you a life span
of sixty years."

The cow said, "That's kind of a tough life you want me to live for sixty
years. How about twenty and I'll give back the other forty?"

And God agreed it was good.

On the fourth day, God created humans and said, "Eat, sleep, play, marry and
enjoy your life. For this, I'll give you twenty years."

But the human said, "Only twenty years? Could you possibly give me my
twenty, the forty the cow gave back, the ten the monkey gave back, and the
ten the dog gave back; that makes eighty, okay?"

"Okay," said God, "You asked for it."

So that is why for our first twenty years, we eat, sleep, play and enjoy
ourselves. For the next forty years, we slave in the sun to support our
family. For the next ten years, we do monkey tricks to entertain the
grandchildren. And for the last ten years, we sit on the front porch and
bark at everyone.

 

[Jack]

Priceless Keith!

 

[Doc Kaler]

A pretty interesting opinion back to the original question: Science vs Beliefs?

Publisher's Corner:
What is science, anyway? or,
Head-on collisions with the Belief Engine [SIZE=+2] Robert L. Park[/SIZE]


[SIZE=+5]A best-selling health guru explains that his brand of spiritual healing is firmly grounded in quantum theory; power companies invest in "cold fusion" schemes that violate the most fundamental laws of physics; half the population believes Earth is being visited by space aliens who have mastered faster-than-light travel. Ancient beliefs in demons and magic sweep across the modern landscape, but they are now dressed in the language and symbols of science. Scientists generally believe the cure for pseudoscience is to raise science literacy. We must ask, however: What is it we would want a scientifically literate society to know? There are a few basic concepts--Darwinian evolution, conservation of energy, the periodic table--that all educated people should know something about, but the explosive growth of scientific knowledge has left scientists themselves struggling to keep up in their own specialties. It is not so much knowledge of science that the public needs as a scientific world view: an understanding that we live in an orderly universe, governed by physical laws that cannot be circumvented.
A scientific world view is not "natural." Psychologist James Alcock describes our brains as "belief engines," constantly processing information coming in from our senses and generating new beliefs about the world around us without any particular regard for what is true and what is not. The same brain that recognizes that tides are linked to phases of the moon may associate the positions of the stars with impending famine, or victory in battle. This kind of belief generation was going on long before our ancestors began to resemble humans, but beliefs now spread around the world in the twinkling of a computer chip. Unfortunately, that which allows us to learn from others makes it easy to be misled by them.
Society, in fact, often holds it to be a virtue to adhere to certain beliefs in spite of evidence to the contrary. Belief in that which reason denies is associated with steadfastness and courage, while skepticism is often identified with cynicism and weak character. The more persuasive the evidence against a belief, the more virtuous it is deemed to persist in it. We honor faith. Faith can be a positive force, enabling people to persevere in the face of daunting odds, but the line between perseverance and fanaticism is perilously thin. The faith of the Branch Davidians in Waco and that of the Heaven's Gate cult members was tested; in both cases, they passed the test.
But we are not condemned to suffer the tyranny of the belief engine. Though its primitive machinery is still in place, evolution didn't stop there, but provided us with the ingredients for an antidote. The antidote begins with the marvelous pattern-recognition ability residing in the higher centers of the human brain. In humans, the ability to discern patterns is astonishingly general. Indeed, we are driven to seek patterns in everything our senses respond to. So intent are we on finding patterns that we often insist on seeing them even when they aren't there, like familiar shapes constructed from Rorschach blots.
That, again, is the belief engine at work. But once we recognize how easily we can be fooled by the workings of the belief engine, we can use the higher centers of the brain to consciously construct a more refined strategy that combines our aptitude for recognizing patterns with the accumulation of observations about Nature made possible by language. Such a strategy is called "science."
"Science is the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world, and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and principles." This elegant description, borrowed from biologist E.O. Wilson's Consilience,1 provides a template against which we can compare claims to see whether they belong in the realm of science. Is it possible to devise an experimental test? Does it make the world more predictable? If not, it isn't science.
The success and credibility of science is anchored in the willingness of scientists, first, to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by other scientists, and second, to modify or abandon accepted facts or theories in the light of more complete or reliable experimental evidence. Adherence to these rules provides a mechanism for self-correction that sets science apart from "other ways of knowing," to use a fashionable euphemism. When better information is available, science textbooks are rewritten with hardly a backward glance.
Many people are uneasy standing on such loose soil; they seek a certainty that science cannot promise. For these people, the unchanging dictates of ancient religious beliefs, or the absolute assurances of quacks, have a more powerful appeal. Paradoxically, however, their yearning for certainty is often mixed with respect for the accomplishments of science. They want to be told that modern science validates the teachings of some ancient scripture or New Age guru. The purveyors of pseudoscience have been quick to exploit this ambivalence, often drawing tortured parallels between Eastern mysticism and modern science. While bemoaning scientific illiteracy, scientists have been timid about publicly confronting this kind of nincompoopery, lest they be accused of intolerance.
In this context, silence is irresponsible. The scientific community needs to assemble an interdisciplinary SWAT team of prominent scientists who will be willing on short notice to respond publicly and forcefully to pseudoscientific claims before they can put down roots. They need not challenge anyone's beliefs; it is enough to hold the science template up against the claims of ufology, qi gong, psychokinesis, and all the other pseudoscientific twaddle and allow the public to judge for themselves whether it fits. People may still choose to believe, but they should not do so under the illusion that it is science.
[/SIZE]

 

[Larry L.]

^ 'Great piece, Doc! Thanks -

'Ditto', Mike! :thumbsup:

 

[Jack]

Very good Doc!

 

[Terry Oxandale]

Great contribution Doc.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

I am continually amazed at the arrogance of people who believe they can effect climate or bring about change to the climate by penalising (taxing) others.
In terms of the Earth's age man has been around about two seconds, to suppose you can change anything in such a short time is not science but more akin to a cult following.
Now I am not talking about trying to stop pollution, I am all for improving air and water quality and not polluting the planet.
But to think that taxing carbon or trading carbon futures will stop the climate from changing
Is arrogant in the extreme. The climate alarmists are not motivated by the wish to save the earth but are motivated by profit and have conned the sheeple into following their cult and making them rich!

Great article Doc.

 

[Larry L.]

^^^^^^^ gospel!

 

[Jack]

You got it Pete!

 

[Mark]

In the UK, there are around 5 million small businesses, (SME's). Energy industry estimates that on average, each SME consumes 20,000 kWh's per year in electricity

The government claims almost 0.7p per kWh in climate change levy (inc VAT) on electricity alone. I estimate that Gas consumption is at least this, but more likely higher, by some margin.

You do the Math and ask why Climate change is a big deal! This tax was non existent prior to 2001.

Has the introduction of climate change levy reduced SME energy consumption? No. FACT!

 

[Mark]

Roughly 30% of all energy charges are third party pass through costs. Guess what these are folks! Most notably Feed In tariffs and Renewable obligations levied on suppliers by government.

Working in energy for 15 years, I have never seen third party costs increased, mid term during a fixed price contract. Not until last year that is! Good old solar pv sucking the life out of UK small businesses.

 

[Mark]

If you live in the UK and you want to spend your own money on solar pv, be my guest. But please, stop expecting me (and every single other person in the uk) to fucking subsidise it enough to be worth your while doing so!

 

[Mark]

Can we all say SCAM?!

 

[Terry Oxandale]

I am continually amazed at the arrogance of people who believe they can effect climate or bring about change to the climate by penalising (taxing) others.
In terms of the Earth's age man has been around about two seconds, to suppose you can change anything in such a short time is not science but more akin to a cult following.
Now I am not talking about trying to stop pollution, I am all for improving air and water quality and not polluting the planet.
But to think that taxing carbon or trading carbon futures will stop the climate from changing
Is arrogant in the extreme. The climate alarmists are not motivated by the wish to save the earth but are motivated by profit and have conned the sheeple into following their cult and making them rich!

Great article Doc.

The irony of this is those that believe in free-market signals and incentive, should view this carbon trading, at the minimum, with a neutral attitude.

I get your skepticism about 'insignificant man' influencing this planet's environment...in perhaps man's most basic primitive self. But that was a several hundred years ago. Unfortunately, man is the only species capable of wiping out entire mountain tops, destroying forests on a global scale, and introducing compounds and chemicals that couldn't otherwise exist if not for man. That then changes everything. The greatest aspect of man (our ability to create and build) is the same thing that will destroy him ( or this planet's balance). With fewer folks on this planet, you could easily make a valid argument, but just like any other life-form, once the population exceeds a tolerable limit, that life-form's byproducts (toxins, impacts, burden, etc) will adversely impact anything around it that was stable prior to that life-form crossing that population x impact threshold. That is observable with every life-form known. Why would man be any different?

To rationalize that activities that are counter to one's beliefs are motivated by those that want to become rich is no different than the poor believing the rich only wish to keep them suppressed in order to make the rich richer. Both sides of this thinking is absurd.

I don't know (and I am skeptical) that carbon trading will be a solution, but we must start somewhere. Otherwise nothing happens. Wind farms were extremely inefficient and expensive, but now they are close to, and within a few years will, rival even cheap gas in regards to total (the definition of total is critical) cost per kWh. But had we listened to only those that thought it was only a scheme to make "someone" rich, or those that felt it was wasted money, we would never have made it to the point where we are today.

 

[Mark Clapp]

I read interviews with Obama's original Czars (advisors). They all said that currently the best mechanism to effect wealth redistribution was through the climate change agenda. These people are not interested in it as a science or to save the planet, but the means to achieve the destruction of the way of life of entire countries.

 

[Robert May Eng.]

Can we all say SCAM?!

I think its quite safe to call it a money go round, any charges like these levied against a large company would be 100% tax deductible. The losers would be the companies that dont make a profit and private individuals.

Bob

 

[Bob Fechter]

How about we start with pressuring China and India, amongst other flagrant polluters, rather than destroying First World economies?

 

[Keith]

What? Upset your financial masters? :stunned:

They wouldn't like that....