It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

James Lovelock revises doomsday schedule

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   

James Lovelock revises doomsday schedule


www.torontosun.com

Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.

He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
I like how Lovelock honestly admits that,"... unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances."

this says a lot about how the wheels of science advance these days and it's true that they are being held back basically by fear and greed.

I don't want to try to steer this discussion by rambling on about different aspects of this story, but I have to have so many words written to be able to post this.

www.torontosun.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy


I like how Lovelock honestly admits that,"... unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances."

this says a lot about how the wheels of science advance these days and it's true that they are being held back basically by fear and greed.

I don't want to try to steer this discussion by rambling on about different aspects of this story, but I have to have so many words written to be able to post this.


It's nice he is admitting "error" but what they did was intentional. It wasn't error nor was it science - it was changing data to reflect what they wanted it to reflect. I've lost a lot of respect for these "scientists".



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
James Lovelock is not religious. He does not believe in the scriptures and has not been blessed with the gift of 'sight'.

James is an Atheist. There are many vile people like him. He does not speak for Christians or God.


Its sorta like saying.


Breaking : Atheist wants to lower the age of having sex with children to 10 and without parental consent. Atheist : Women are less than men and belong in the kitchen.

I am Atheist like many others and I believe I lack intelligence and am a useless clone upon this planet that gets in the way of virtuous people. All of us Atheists agree.
edit on 23-6-2012 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 




He does not speak for Christians or God.


He speaks about the earth and the climate, is that not a part of god? It is good he can admit his mistakes, we all make them. When you think you have all the answers while there is still much unknown, it is just another mistake.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Before I make a statement I want to make something clear. I believe in God.

That out of the way with, I shall explain my point.Making the climate science debate about religion is utterly preposterous. No matter what religion you happen to be a part of, or not, we are all on the same spinning ball of dirt and water, plunging through the void at improbable velocities while under assault from the flares and emissions of the Sun.

Therefore, regardless of metaphysics, we have at least this one thing in common, and that is a territory we share. It benefits all of us to keep that environment as healthy as possible, not just for the sake of the planet (which I suspect is more than capable of surviving anything us mere apes can do to it), but for the sake of our species, and the species on which we rely for our food. If you think deeply enough about these things, you will understand that many food crops and food animals require delicately balanced ecosystems to be in place. Often these vital ecological structures are not OBVIOUSLY linked to one another, but the links are there.

If certain bees die off, then so do certain plants because they will not be able to reproduce, the bees never having delivered the other half of the genetic information required. If the plants die, so do the bees, because they cease to be able to collect enough nectar to make their hives function as normal. And so on and so forth up the food chain. These delicately balanced eco structures, rely on certain prevailing weather conditions remaining in place for extended periods of time, and with infrequent, and short term changes being shrugged off.

Long term change in climate however, WILL see things get very bad indeed, of that I have no doubt. But it is important to realise that the people who advocate or lobby on behalf of ANYTHING these days, are usually wrong in the head, or acting out of greed. The people who manufactured the first hybrid vehicle did not do it because they wanted to save the world. They saw a way to make money, and acted on it like good little capitalists. Those who make solar and wind power plants do not do so from the goodness of their hearts (otherwise they would not cost so damned much). They do it, because they see a fast buck and want it.

Gore and Lovelock do not lobby on the environment because they are trying to save mankind, they do it because they have something in the pipe that will mean they make an awful lot of money from the bright new dawn of cleaner energies. I would not trust an oil executive to tell the truth for the life of his mother, but I would not trust either Gore or Lovelock either.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
James is an Atheist. There are many vile people like him. He does not speak for Christians or God.




Given that ...

- the linked news article didnt even mention Christianity or God,
- the opening post of this thread didnt mention Christianity or God,
- none of the posts before yours mentions Christianity or God,

... I do rather wonder what inflamed your anger and initiated your rant.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join