James Lovelock admits he was alarmist on climate change

[annette]

There is a growing skepticism in regards to global warming. I think all the science and not just those funded for a particular cause need to get the facts on the table. There should be an open debate with those with alternative views to not be shouted down. I am undecided about it all but would like to see a debate and facts put forward.

http://www.inquisitr.com/224934/glob...g-an-alarmist/

[pebble]

Here's the original interview with Lovelock

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news...e?ocid=twitter

As far as I can tell all Lovelock is saying is that it's not happening as fast as he had previously thought. He also says that temperatures in the last 12 years haven't risen, and that that is long enough to have seen *something*. A climate change scientist in that article says the opposite.

[annette]

Yes that's right. So why aren't they trying to investigate why those predictions have not come to pass at the rate they were so sure about? Haven't heard any explanation yet. I want pollution targetted, overfishing, toxic waste, unsustainable ag practices, use of chemicals etc. If those things aren't addressed and quickly, global warming want bother anyone. There won't be anyone left.

[Pakanohida]

People actually beleive in global climate change now. It didn't happen as they said, but in some cases it is a lot worse. The North Eastern US is already starting to be in drought again, hail fell in the midwest several feet deep, and so on.

Then there is this major move by Ford. http://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/07/bu...coalition.html

Ford Announces Its Withdrawal From Global Climate Coalition

Ford's decision is the latest sign of divisions within heavy industry over how to respond to global warming. British Petroleum and Shell pulled out of the coalition two years ago following criticisms from environmental groups in Europe, where there has been more public concern than in the United States. Most scientists believe that emissions from automobiles, power plants and other man-made sources are warming the Earth's atmosphere.

I am just happy I am seeing things change for the better... ..there is a changing of consciousness occurring on the planet today.

[pebble]

"So why aren't they trying to investigate why those predictions have not come to pass at the rate they were so sure about? "

AFAIK that's exactly what CC scientists are doing all the time - gathering data and assessing the evidence and then trying to make predictions. If you are asking why Lovelock isn't doing that, I'm sorry, I don't know.

I agree with you about the relative importance of CC compared to other environmental disasters.

[eco4560]

If you are asking why Lovelock isn't doing that, I'm sorry, I don't know.

He's 93. Cut him some slack! I would think he's retired from active research.

[Michaelangelica]

Have a look at this
http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/.../statement.htm
Then tell me that humans are not warming the planet.

I would not believe anything put out by Menzies house.
They are a right wing pressure/opinion group, with their own weird agenda; so un-liberal they would have the old PM Menzies turning in his grave

[pebble]

Love the cartoon Ludi :-))

[Michaelangelica]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...eat/?mobile=nc

Climate scientists have been consistently downplaying and underestimating the risks for three main reasons. First, their models tended to ignore the myriad amplifying carbon cycle feedbacks that we now know are kicking in (such as the defrosting tundra).
Second, they never imagined that the nations of the world would completely ignored their warnings, that we would knowingly choose catastrophe. So until recently they hardly ever seriously considered or modeled the do-nothing scenario, which is a tripling (820 ppm) or quadrupling (1100 ppm) of preindustrial levels of carbon dioxide over the next hundred years or so. In the last 2 or 3 years, however, the literature in this area has exploded and the picture it paints is not pretty (see “An Illustrated Guide to the Science of Global Warming Impacts: How We Know Inaction Is the Gravest Threat Humanity Faces“).
Third, as Blakemore (and others) have noted, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are generally reticent and cautious in stating results — all the more so in this case out of the mistaken fear that an accurate diagnosis would somehow make action less likely. Yes, it’d be like a doctor telling a two-pack-a-day patient with early-stage emphysema that their cough is really not that big a deal, but would they please quit smoking anyway. We live in a world, however, where anyone who tries to explain what the science suggests is likely to happen if we keep doing nothing is attacked as an alarmist by conservatives, disinformers, and their enablers in the media.
Back in 2005, the physicist Mark Bowen wrote about glaciologist Lonnie Thompson: “Scientists have an annoying habit of backing off when they’re asked to make a plain statement, and climatologists tend to be worse than most.”
The good news, if you can call it that, is that the climate situation has become so dire that even the most reticent climatologists are starting to speak more bluntly. By the end of 2010, Thompson was writing:. . . .

[annette]

Wow great article and answers some of the questions I have been thinking of. Thanks M.

Cheers
Annette