Writer James Lovelock Backtracks on Revenge of Gaia
Most institutions demand unqualified faith;
but the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue.
— Robert King Merton, sociologist (1910-2003)
James Lovelock, the father of the Gaia hypothesis, has had to backtrack on the hysterical predictions in his 2006 book "The Revenge of Gaia." He also notes that environmentalists have turned his work into a religion. He noted this with alarm in his original Ages of Gaia circa 1979.
On alleged human-driven climate change shouting "deniers" is silly. Using terms such as "deniers" is something that religious fanatics would say, in this case, climate heresy. Skepticism is the proper role of science, and questioning the hypotheses of human-induced climate change is scientific and not crazy.
There is no doubt that climate change is real, but empirical proof as to why is another question. What is beyond doubt is change is constant and sometimes dramatic.
Yet all we get constantly is the opinions of select scientists - the opinions of scientists do not constitute science or empirical proof. In addition, these scientists for hire are instructed to limit their evidence to human causes while disregarding natural causes - this stacks the deck before we even begin.
It should also be noted most ground-based weather monitoring has been abandoned in recent years for less effective satellite monitoring - then they fill in the gaps with guesses and computer-generated data. No surprise that after the adjustments, they proved a slight warming of 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in 200 years.
That is background noise. A good example is methane. Methane makes up 1.9 parts per million or 0.00019% of the atmosphere.
A gallon of water weighs 128 ounces. 0.00019% times 128 equals 0.024 ounces or 0.68 grams.
They claim methane is hundreds of times worse than carbon dioxide (0.04%) as a greenhouse gas. So what? In trace amounts, it does no such thing.
A computer model cannot possibly simulate this in the real world.
This is why their computer models always fail because of the refusal to look at natural causes. True science involving actual measured data from thousands of physical samples is expensive and time-consuming. Computer modeling is a cheap workaround for producing the desired result quickly.
Worse, computer modeling can't be used to verify real-world conditions. That violates the scientific method making it impossible for outsiders to even try.
Fig. 2 has discredited computer models once again. When published in 2018, they claimed no significant warming since 2000. Under pressure from activists, they "revised" the data and methodology to support activists' claims.
This is built on hypothetical and often proprietary computer modeling the public can't even access. They resort to a government authority, not scientific proof.
Politicizing science undermines its credibility, and it is not as the New York Times claims about "faith in science" - faith is for religion. Science is about data and verifiable scientific proof.
Another issue before moving on: why start with the mid to late 1970s? Because that was at the end of a 30-year cooling period where the press claimed a coming ice age. Starting there makes a claim scarier.
The actual temperature rise has been ~2 degrees Fahrenheit over 220 years, or 0.009 degrees per year. This is background noise.
In the Guardian.com March 30, 2014, Dr. Lovelock says, "It's become a religion, and religions don't worry too much about facts."
Dr. Lovelock is an ardent supporter of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas and nuclear power. This would go a long way in solving the alleged carbon dioxide crisis preached by spiritual ecologists - but they reject any practical solutions. Implementing their political agenda in the name of Gaia is the real goal.
Spiritualism aside, the agenda is about socialism and redistribution of wealth, not technology or solving any actual problem. Climate extremists believe anything artificial amounts to evil.
Environmentalists are not monolithic, but far too many are driven by scientific ignorance, political agendas, and, yes, a spiritual outlook. Religion has no place in science or public policy based on science.
In the past, alarmists have voiced legitimate concerns but operate from ignorance of how the real world operates.
1) Resource depletion. In the 1970s, as a teenager, I watched a special on television that by the year 2000, eleven major industrial metals would be depleted. Didn't happen as changing technology, including far better pollution controls, made more material available. Manufactured materials replaced or supplemented known reserves.
2) Peak oil, energy shortages, pollution. None of this happened, except pollution in China, etc. Changes in technology, including pollution controls, eliminated most pollution in advanced nations.
Coal use has declined and has been replaced by cheap and abundant natural gas. Oil shale technology, hydraulic fracturing, and horizontal drilling have created record oil and gas output - the United States is or will be the largest oil producer. America is already the largest natural gas producer.
In addition, the World Health Organization (W.H.O.) in 2016 noted the United States is the least polluting developed nation in the world, second only to low-population Canada. Yes, far less polluting than Europe, etc. China, India, Brazil, etc., are the real polluters.
This refers to real pollution not carbon dioxide.
We can curb most pollution because affordable energy, affordable food, and a high standard of living make pollution control affordable. Government-imposed shortages, and rationing in the name of ecological spiritualism, will do just the opposite - plus human misery for no good reason.
3) Over-population, mass starvation by 1990, then by 2000, then by whenever. It Didn't happen. Technology, the Green Revolution, and added CO2 have created massive grain harvests worldwide. In fact, there is so much food available farmers across the world struggle to sell their surpluses.
In 2022, wars (Russia-Ukraine) and green politics in Sri Lanka have created shortages.
Birth rates continue to fall as developing nations can get affordable food and energy. A few solar panels on a mud hut are not a solution to anything.
The real solution to actual pollution is affordable energy driven by technology that drives better pollution controls, products that use fewer resources, and that develop new resources from useless materials.
But we won't get there by centralized planning or socialist economics or feel-good ecological spiritualism. Venezuela, a once wealthy country with abundant energy, stands as an example of how not to do things.
- Common Sense Environmentalism
- Environmentalism 50 Years of Observation
- Government Study on Climate Change Raises Questions
- Paradise California Fire Ignore Natural Causes
- Ecology as Environmental Socialism
- Peripheral Virginia Versus Climate Change Activism
- Nature's End? Crackpots Get It Wrong Again
- Our Obsession with Armageddon, Some Welcome It
- Science Ignorance Doomed Biosphere 2
- Democracy and the Origins of the US Constitution
- Thoughts on Theistic Evolution and Deism by Lewis Loflin
- My Answer to a Secular Fundamentalist by Lewis Loflin
- Web Master Homepage
- Homepage Sullivan-County.com
- Christianity 101
- Religious Themes
On Religion and the Fall of Civilization by Will Durant
An Overview of Manichaeism. Its influence on Protestantism through St. Augustine.
» General Subjects
» Archive 1 » Archive 2 » Archive 3
» Archive 4 » Archive 5 » Archive 6
» Archive 7 » Archive 8 » Archive 9
Web site Copyright Lewis Loflin, All rights reserved.
If using this material on another site, please provide a link back to my site.