Backtracking on Climate Change

[wolfd]

James Lovelock, a leading scientist on climate change has now backtracked and says things are not as bad as he said they were.

More here:

Sun News : Global warming guru says not so fast

[LibertyHeir]

I'm guessing that it's like anything in life... -only time will tell.

Much of what is being observed in the way of climate change could be a result of man-made changes..... or it could be simply the natural cycle of things. After all, 11,000 years ago this part of the world was under a mile thick glacier.

I will admit that I have observed some changes in the weather patterns during my brief (63 years) tenure, but my instinctive concern may be that of any animal sensing an approaching storm.

I guess to put it simply, some of what the 'experts' say seems a bit 'alarmist', yet there also seems to be a bit of truth to it.

[Douglas]

We know the things we are doing are bad for the planet. Chemicals in the air, holes in the ground, giant nuclear explosions, etc etc. Now we know the ozone layer can be attributed to the chemicals, which allows more radiation in. Beyond that, it could be coincidence, but the fact remains the climate is changing. Plant and animal habitats are moving and/or dieing off. Our weather is getting more extreme (highs, lows and storm strength). Who knows what will happen in the future, but we do need to change our habits and beliefs that there arent consequences for our actions and we find a way to kill ourselves off.

[km6xz]

Originally Posted by wolfd

James Lovelock, a leading scientist on climate change has now backtracked and says things are not as bad as he said they were.

More here:

Sun News : Global warming guru says not so fast

Do you know his background and specialization? I would assume not if you believe that his change of heart means a reputation of the work by climate scientists. He made a number of wild claims that just about everyone who legitimately studies the phenomena disagreed with. He just backtracked his own discredited claims to align more with the main stream of serious science in the field.
So, actually, he is admitting that the current theories have more supporting them then his own does. That is actually the exact opposite of what your comment suggested.

[wolfd]

Originally Posted by km6xz

Do you know his background and specialization? I would assume not if you believe that his change of heart means a reputation of the work by climate scientists. He made a number of wild claims that just about everyone who legitimately studies the phenomena disagreed with. He just backtracked his own discredited claims to align more with the main stream of serious science in the field.
So, actually, he is admitting that the current theories have more supporting them then his own does. That is actually the exact opposite of what your comment suggested.

Lovelock graduated from Manchester University with B. Science in Chemistry, taking a post at the National Institute of Medical Research in London. He later worked at the Salisbury's Common Cold Research Unit Harvard Hospital, and received his Ph.D. from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. That would make him eminently more qualified to discuss the issue at hand than say, Al Gore or David Suzuki.

Climate science is all about prediction. If you are working with the wrong or incomplete data, your predictions will be wrong and that is precisely what has happened.

You might also want to look up Dr. Tim Ball, a Ph.D. in Climatology from the Queen Mary, University of London and a former professor of climatology in the Geography Department at the University of Winnipeg who can further corroborate what Lovelock is now saying.

Exactly to what current theories are you referring to Stan ?

[km6xz]

Yes, of course he had not studied climate but that did not stop him from predicting using discredited theories he raised in the Gaia concept that he was pushing for decades to a disbelieving scientific community. Much of his work did not pertain to science but to philosophy. His predictions that the change in climate would kill 80% of the world's population by 2100 for example, is one he is backtracking on because he now admits that the consensus view for a much slower rate of change is probably right as data keeps reaffirming. His is an interesting person, the last of the long tradition of private researchers without affiliation, doing self funded and self published papers. As many scientist suggest he is more a science or futurist philosopher than scientist. Many even call him a New Age crackpot. His admitting he was wrong will get notice in the lay press but not in the scientific community.

[wolfd]

But is he less qualified than the alarmist David Suzuki who has been saying much the same thing as Lovelock? Suzuki's specialized field is Zoology yet he makes himself out to be an authority on climate change.

Or what about Al Gore who knows virtually nothing about the subject but managed to make millions by capitalizing on people's fears in the matter?

At least Lovelock has come out and admitted he was wrong.

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by Douglas

We know the things we are doing are bad for the planet. Chemicals in the air, holes in the ground, giant nuclear explosions, etc etc. Now we know the ozone layer can be attributed to the chemicals, which allows more radiation in.

And when was the last time you heard of anyone's having actually exploded a nuclear device outside Asia, even underground? That hasn't happened in thirty years or so.

Similar with chemicals in the air. We have a lot less of them now than in the 1970s. I remember days back then in San Jose, California, when the haze was noticeable just looking down the street. The ozone holes above the poles have been shrinking for a while now, presumably because the halogenated hydrocarbons in the air have been changed to less harmful versions. Automotive air conditioners are more harmful than others because the gas diffuses and eventually escapes through the rubber hoses but not the metal tubing used in stationary devices such as refrigerators and household air conditioners. You also find a lot fewer pressurized aerosol cans now than you used to, and our vehicles burn a lot cleaner too.

Those are some of the successes. Sometimes the proposed solutions turn out to be worse than the problems they are intended to fix. Although more a public health than a pollution problem, the replacement of saturated fats with trans fats is an example. Others were needlessly costly for the hazards the problem posed. In other cases, the reaction is out of proportion to the problem. The way the ban on cyclamates was implemented in 1973 still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. More recently, more on-topic is the classification of carbon dioxide as a pollutant. A pollutant? Really? The only way to get rid of the carbon dioxide is to kill off all animal and plant life that uses aerobic respiration.

Regardless of which side of this issue you happen to be on, you might take a look at the site Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division - dihydrogen monoxide info that details the hazards of DHMO, which are much better-documented than some of these other substances, yet there are no current plans to ban or even to restrict the use of this chemical.