Scientist says we're doomed; stop saving the world and retreat to climate-controlled cities

SaturnFX
Now
I don't know what to think about the GAIA theory overall (conscious self regulating planet), and that is pretty irrelevant anyhow.

Not sure where the conscious planet is necessarily coming from (perhaps 2ofusr1's links?) but that really isn't totally how the Gaia Hypothesis is. The concept of Gaia is more along the lines of the integration of complex processes which have tendency for what is called homeostasis. In the natural world, a rainy season increases the deer population, which decreases the grasses and, in turn, increases the population of wolves, which then decrease the deer population with a thousand little things in between, lol. In that sense, the Gaia hypothesis is self regulating through that cause and effect. The idea is that the entirety of the biosphere developed, in unison, through the processes of evolution to make it what it has become. Everything has a role. Disruption of that causes a cascade effect.

The base concept does not necessarily equate to a consciousness, overall. Lovelock never said that the planet was consciously aware and regulating itself through that consciousness. In fact, he said this, "Nowhere in our writings do we express the idea that planetary self-regulation is purposeful, or involves foresight or planning by the biota". It's as natural as dropping a rock, watching it fall and impact the earth. It's cause and effect on a grand scale.

Gaia Hypothesis

Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis is really brilliant, imho. It's not a religion. It does not have a consciously aware planet. It simply accepts that incredible complexity and development of that planet.

the2ofusr1
"Scientist behind the Gaia hypothesis says environment movement does not pay enough attention to facts and he was too certain in the past about rising temperatures"

"The 94 year-old scientist, famous for his Gaia hypothesis that Earth is a self-regulating, single organism, also said that he had been too certain about the rate of global warming in his past book, that “it’s just as silly to be a [climate] denier as it is to be a believer” and thatfracking and nuclear power should power the UK, not renewable sources such as windfarms.

Speaking to the Guardian for an interview ahead of a landmark UN climate science report on Monday on the impacts of climate change, Lovelock said of the warnings of climate catastrophe in his 2006 book, Revenge of Gaia: “I was a little too certain in that book. You just can’t tell what’s going to happen.”

James Lovelock: environmentalism has become a religion www.theguardian.com...

For a skeptic look at this matter with comments wattsupwiththat.com...

There have been a lot of converts not of ideology (they still want what's best for humanity and the earth) but, of tempered reasonable solutions. The 'scorched civilization' campaign is over the top and so obviously counterproductive as to sober even the most zealous but educated environmentalist.

I have a soft spot for James, for personal reasons (no, not that sort!) - and I agree that were wasting our time trying to prevent AGW. We should be working on how to adapt and live with it.

Not that you'll find me living in a city even if you paid me £100m and promised me eternal life!

WhiteAlice

Gaia Hypothesis

Thanks. I haven't spent too much time on the theory outside of just a quick skimming
And of course hearing some people suggest the planet itself is a conscious lifeform..which sounds a bit quacky to me, but meh, might be true.
But a regulated biosphere sounds pretty normal. an adaptation to the chemical balance, distance from sun, etc...will no doubt come up with a complex web of simple systems that cycle fairly routinely

We humans, being self determined conscious individual I suspect have thrown a wrench into the cogs of this system.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


So adding something that exponentially grows in numbers and has no predators will be fine.

reply to post by greencmp

The whole thing is when things get political and that is ,what has happened ."UPDATE: 2/27 3PM PST Dr. Moore leaves a comment, see below.
Our friend Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, went before the U.S. Senate yesterday to tell his story as it relates to global warming/climate change. It is well worth your time to read. WUWT readers may recall that since Dr. Moore has decided to speak out against global warming and for Golden Rice, Greenpeace is trying to disappear his status with the organization, much like people were disappeared in Soviet Russia.

Statement of Patrick Moore, Ph.D. Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight" wattsupwiththat.com...

I am all for not polluting and leaving a small foot print but the green movement was taken over many years ago .What can you do other then be responsible yourself and try and share some of the knowledge you find along the way ....peace.

I have always been a proponent of inventing our way out of this mess. Its sort of what we as humans are good at overall. Give us a challenge and watch us fly.

As far as going green on a individual scale, sure..it will be helpful overall, but it only delays things a bit. Even if everyone on earth recycled, put filters on all the plants globally, etc...we still are growing in size and will just be delaying the inevitable..

What is needed then is out of the box large scale innovation to take hold. Build a mechanical "tree" that absorbs greenhouse gases out of the air at a very efficient rate. pour money into cheap advanced solar panel development for consumers to switch over, etc.
A type 1 civilization has control over their ecosystem..time we make strides towards that in a non destructive way.

reply to post by SaturnFX


I was introduced to the Gaia Hypothesis as a dual science major with a focus on ecology. Back in those days, when dinosaurs still roamed the earth, there were very few classes in ecology, itself. I took two of the three courses in ecology that were available at the time (did not take the marine variant as I cannot swim lol). Regardless, the Gaia Hypothesis was discussed in nearly every single one of my earth sciences classes from biology to geology to climatology along with cautions of it being malformed into a pseudo earth based religion by some and to not do so ourselves. I'm not sure why it was regarded like that. Maybe propaganda or maybe it was just adopted by pre-existing pagans as a kind of scientific testament to their "mother earth" beliefs. Who knows, lol. The core concept of Gaia is not a religion though. It's taking all of the pieces within the biosphere and the inorganic and looking at their interrelationships as a whole that has been developed over billions of years.

aivlas
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

So adding something that exponentially grows in numbers and has no predators will be fine.

edit on 9-4-2014 by aivlas because: ahhh more letters

No, it would not be. That is what is classified as an "invasive species". Such things actually tend to destroy the environments that they have been introduced to because they have no check against them within that environment. Rabbits in Australia, Africanized honey bees, and over half the ornamental plants in our gardens would all fall under "invasive species". They take up resources and space from life already established within that ecosystem without contribution to that environment (technically a predator is something that uses that species). They totally disrupt and imbalance the ecosystem.

Rabbits in Australia

reply to post by Rezlooper


If Lovelock had expanded his Gaia hypothesis logically to include biological systems he would know that 'retreating' to self-enclosed environments will not work.

reply to post by Rezlooper


I know you are saying that IPCC have not got Methane release in their calculations, but have they?
God knows, the way the CO2 information has been gathered is anything but perfect, and so many routine adjustments for this and for that, who's to say that methane release is just hidden in the wacky CO2 statistics, but the intent is blame it on CO2 and allowing climate change as our fault, with all that entails, what we now need to pay for in taxes and research, blah blah. I would think, (others may differ) that the debacle at the UEA trying to nurse the figures for CO2, and threatening online publishers of those e-mails, was a big red flag for all of us not in the know. The downplaying of increasing aircraft traffic and their contrails, (which are also highly toxic and chemically active anyway) heating the Earth's surface in a major way is another red flag.

The Arctic Sea Methane has been studied for years by the Russians at the sea bed, the sea bed is fractured and leaking, they have said so, over and over again. That could be from seismic activity/pole reversal. However transfer that to the West, there is a different take on it, it is because of melting ice, caused by CO2 that is causing Methane release. All in all I would sway to the Russian version of things. What we get here is a load of soundbites that you know right away is just another brick in the wall between you and your money. Also, we know that one IPCC contributor refused to sign that latest report, others in the past walked away from the panel.
Another thing about Russia that is perhaps not so well known, or perhaps maybe, but I will regurgitate anyway and you can throw stones if you want. For over a hundred years Russia entertained the idea of warming the frozen waste of the Siberian Steppes by artificial means, then a huge area would have been given over to agriculture to feed the country and food exports for prosperity, there is not much word about that now but, it could just be that mother nature is doing just that...all by herself.

the2ofusr1
WUWT readers may recall that since Dr. Moore has decided to speak out against global warming and for Golden Rice, Greenpeace is trying to disappear his status with the organization, much like people were disappeared in Soviet Russia.

This is one of the most absurd and ridiculous comparisons I've seen since that billionaire comparing criticism of the 1% to the Holocaust.

What kind of delusional source is this Watts Up With That?

reply to post by Rezlooper

Hey Rez-I have to agree with that. We spend so much time trying to fix things that are really beyond fixing....it just keeps society deluded, hopeful and busy.

We should spend all that time, research, money and effort on preparing us a place to go to.
We ruined what we've got. It will go completely bad-gone, way before we can fix it, if ever.

I think we need to get out....while we still can.

reply to post by Greven


Well as absurd as that statement may seem you would have to go into the timing and exchanges with Green peace changing their own website . It's all documented ..Got to love Google and time stamps and wiki edits .:>)

reply to post by the2ofusr1

Either you and the people who wrote that comment don't know what "disappear" means in the context of Soviet Russia, or you share in their absurd delusion that this is an acceptable and valid comparison. Which is it?

I share Dr. Lovelock's opinion, and have for some time. Not just from climate change, but from having a background or knowledge in other fields as well.

reply to post by Greven


Oh yea sorry that part that included Russia was a bit over the top ....peace But I also think that the AGW crowed labeling people that do not agreeing with them as deniers is a bit over the top too ..

reply to post by Greven


I don't know but the poster really, really pushes that particular blog/site in just about every post he makes on these subjects. It's a curiosity. Either he's a huge fan or someone involved with it. Regardless of which one it is, I don't click on his links because any traffic is good traffic.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


I know, it was a slight jab at a certain mind set that thinks it's not a problem

One million chars

Although CO2 is just one part of the problem, I think there should be a plethora of enormous Carbon dioxide scrubbers built all over the world to try and remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere. In addition, to curb further CO2 release, nuclear power stations should also become the norm, as I'm sure they can be built safely nowadays and in places that are far away from any direct dangers, i.e. in a non-seismically active area and nowhere near the Sea - unlike the Fukashima plant; bloody morons...

WhiteAlice

aivlas
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

So adding something that exponentially grows in numbers and has no predators will be fine.

edit on 9-4-2014 by aivlas because: ahhh more letters

No, it would not be. That is what is classified as an "invasive species". Such things actually tend to destroy the environments that they have been introduced to because they have no check against them within that environment. Rabbits in Australia, Africanized honey bees, and over half the ornamental plants in our gardens would all fall under "invasive species". They take up resources and space from life already established within that ecosystem without contribution to that environment (technically a predator is something that uses that species). They totally disrupt and imbalance the ecosystem.

Rabbits in Australia

And Homo Sapiens Idiotti wherever it's found?

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Hats off to another Tepper fan. But now I have to reread Beauty. It'll take some time.

S&