If you’ve been paying attention, you shouldn’t be surprised about the quotes you are about to read. Regardless, it is still staggering in its arrogance and frightening in the mindset that it reveals. The quote come from James Lovelock who, if you didn’t know, is “the globally respected environmental thinker and independent scientist who developed the Gaia theory.” Or so says the Guardian UK.
They interviewed Lovelock about the leak UEA-CRU emails. Near the end of the article, Lovelock almost has the right attitude.
He said he had not read the original emails – “I felt reluctant to pry” – but that their reported content had left him feeling “utterly disgusted”.
“Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science,” he said. “I’m not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It’s the one thing you do not ever do. You’ve got to have standards.”My only complaint would be his “reluctance to pry”. But what does he say at the beginning of the interview?
“I don’t think we’re yet evolved to the point where we’re clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change,” said Lovelock in his first in-depth interview since the theft of the UEA emails last November. “The inertia of humans is so huge that you can’t really do anything meaningful.”
One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is “modern democracy”, he added. “Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”
Let that sink in for a second and consider what he is advocating. In his opinion people aren’t evolved enough to handle the difficult problems. They need to be led. They need to be tended by a ruling class, by a ruling class of people like him.
We are, apparently, to put our trust in the people who faked data to drive worldwide opinion. Who have been caught in at least a dozen similar improprieties, using non-scientific data and sources as the basis for scientific conclusions. Who have admitted that exaggeration is an acceptable means of controlling public opinion and actions. Who have even said that some climate change related diplomacy has little to do with the environment and much to do with giving a competitive advantage to developing countries.
I’m afraid that I can’t join the Guardian in respecting the ramblings of Mr. Lovelock. And I hope that a majority of people who hear what he has to say feel the same way as I do