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.

 

Godfather of global warming predictions, "incorrect"

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Hello all. Interesting article that caught my eye earlier today, figured I would share it. James Lovelock one of the original scientists to sound the global warming alarm has come out publicly to claim global warming theories were overstated. You may remember this is the same scientist who came up with the Gaia theory, the theory that the earth is a living organism. So what does this mean? Well you can throw the doomsday scenarios in the trash, sorry Al Gore.

Lovelock gave several observations he would like the public to know. Including:


(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.



2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion. “It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”



(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.



(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.


He makes some very good points in my opinion. I never truly believed in the doomsday talk, and considered most of it a get rich scheme by the alarmists, again sorry Al Gore. What does everyone else think? The so called guru of the movement admits he was wrong, does this kill the movement??

Source:www.torontosun.com...

Thanks all, good day.
edit on 24-6-2012 by Covertblack because: spelling

edit on 24-6-2012 by Covertblack because: Added link




posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
I tend not to go with one scientist's theory, rather I read many theories then take each with a grain of salt.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Covertblack
 


He was wrong once, he can be wrong again.
I am guessing some oil producer is paying him a hefty sum to lie like this.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by Covertblack
 


He was wrong once, he can be wrong again.
I am guessing some oil producer is paying him a hefty sum to lie like this.


I'm not convinced of that. The man is 92, he surely does not need economic stability, no?



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by InTheLight
I tend not to go with one scientist's theory, rather I read many theories then take each with a grain of salt.


Exactly. When the whole movement started I had my doubts, however if I ever publicly stated them people would look as if I had lobsters growing out of my ears.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Covertblack
 


Are lobsters growing out of your ears though?



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by Covertblack
 


Are lobsters growing out of your ears though?


Lol, possibly when I drink but I never seem to be able to catch them.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by Covertblack
 


He was wrong once, he can be wrong again.
I am guessing some oil producer is paying him a hefty sum to lie like this.


I'm not convinced of that. The man is 92, he surely does not need economic stability, no?


92? Oh then all they had to do is threaten the old guy or his children.

The oil industry is behind the global warming denial effort and you really don't have to be climatologist or a detective to learn that as a fact. Just read Science Daily


Golly gee, I wonder why those oil industry types might try to put an idea like that in our head?
edit on 24-6-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


Why would they threaten him now? He came out with this theory years ago. I believe they would have made him flip flop in the beginning if at all. He eludes to why he is stating his position now in the article:


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.


Seems as though it's other scientists who are not revising their theories because of money.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Covertblack
 


Oh well then, he must be telling the truth.
My bad.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.

This is the truth.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by Covertblack
 


Oh well then, he must be telling the truth.
My bad.


Believe what you wish. If you want to think that he was told to say these things than prove it. Are you suggesting that he originally came up with his theories because he was paid by the green movement? I too can throw out wild accusations.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by InTheLight
4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.

This is the truth.


It is the truth. Some like to use science as a clearly defined order, when in fact it's always changing.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Covertblack
 


Well I have always thought that global warming being presented as an imminent doomsday scenario was grossly dishonest.

However this does not take away from the fact that global warming is occurring and is a growing threat to many different species, plant and animal.

The real damage will occur in our grandchildren's time if present trends continue.
edit on 24-6-2012 by Openeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by Covertblack
 


Well I have always thought that global warming being a imminent doomsday scenario was grossly dishonest.

However this does not take away from the fact that global warming is occurring and is a growing threat to many different species, plant and animal.

The real damage will occur in our grandchildren's time if present trends continue.
edit on 24-6-2012 by Openeye because: (no reason given)


I agree that I think it is occurring. Lovelock even states that it is, just not nearly as damaging as was originally thought.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Covertblack
 


The only problem with stories like these though is that people jump on them and use them against the environmental movement, without doing any real research.

Global warming is not a thing we can just throw on the back burner, it is a perfect example of the responsibility man has in protecting the bio sphere, and that our ways have to change as our understanding of our impact on the planet grows.

Like how burning coal is not that good of an idea in the long run, along with shooting mass amounts of chemicals underground to harvest natural gasses.
edit on 24-6-2012 by Openeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Openeye
 


That was not the point of what I posted, but I understand what you mean. This doesn't give us a free pass to wreck the environment, but as you stated earlier it was the doomsday scenarios of the movement that were incorrect. I believe that if the theory is correct you don't need to toss in massive death scenarios to get people to believe it and adhere to it. I think the dishonesty of it is what will turn people off.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Covertblack
 


Exactly.

Dishonesty just feeds...well conspiracy theories



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Openeye

The only problem with stories like these though is that people jump on them and use them against the environmental movement, without doing any real research.

A very true statement. There is nothing at all wrong with (and much right with) attempts to improve our abilities through the use of alternate energy. The only time it becomes a problem is when tactics such as lying, propaganda, and force are used to advance an agenda that just happens to appear environmentally friendly.


Global warming is not a thing we can just throw on the back burner, it is a perfect example of the responsibility man has in protecting the bio sphere, and that our ways have to change as our understanding of our impact on the planet grows.

Neither is any global warming a thing we can hope to simply stop overnight.

We at present really have no proof that carbon dioxide is a culprit, that global temperatures will continue to increase, that such an increase will be disastrous, or that overall global temperatures are increasing now for that matter. We have some observations that indicate a possibility of global warming occurring, and we have some theories that merit research.

I will happily admit that some good did come out of the carbon dioxide scam... people do seem to be more conscious as a whole of the value of this exceptional planet, and many seem to understand better now that even scientists are not gods and can be wrong. That can only be a good thing in the long run.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
I wrote a lengthy post with several arguments that directly contradict the "greenhouse gas" global warming theory. (in my signature)

The earth may be warming, but it is not man-made, and it has been shown that CO2 being a cause is a farce. The Vostok ice cores have long shown that the temperature changes happened BEFORE the CO2 increases, which is why there was such a maelstrom in scientific circles, and why the "man-made global warming" theory has died a horrible death in the media and other public forums. Once "real" scientists starting tearing apart the data and using the actual scientific process of measuring things and conducting experiments, it became clear rather quickly that someting was not right.

It's nice to see Lovelock getting off the bandwagon in light of the evidence. It shows he's not as stupid as some had suspected.

~Namaste




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join