« Voyeuristic Govosexual | Main | Oy, Vey, Yippee-Ki-Yay! »

Still think climate change is about the climate?

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


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Still think climate change is about the climate?:

» Maggie's Farm linked with Political quote of the day

» Washington Rebel linked with Questions for My Country

Comments (38)

"They need to be led. They ... (Below threshold)

"They need to be led. They need to be tended by a ruling class, by a ruling class of people like him."

Of course! And just like The Goracle, 'others' need to sacrifice. But not the 'leaders'.

Guess I'll add Lovelock to the list of scientists who predicted that by now:

1) run out of space
2) run out of farmland
3) run out of food
4) freeze to death

ALL had the same basic premise: "LET THE SCIENTISTS LEAD AND WE WILL SAVE YOU!"

And of course, that 'ruling... (Below threshold)

And of course, that 'ruling class' of elites would be 'entitled' to a much higher standard of living than the rest of us proles.

Kinda like Al Gore, he lives in a mansion, uses more electricity in a month that the average household uses in a year, has a fleet of SUV's, has a gigantic houseboat, and obviously he personally eats enough for two. Hypocrites all of them.

It becomes obvious abortion... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

It becomes obvious abortion choice, left to his parents was not properly exercised. The only solution to this type of thinking is an application of post natal abortion. Men like Lovelock are damaged thinkers. They have the I know what is best for you disease. It is terminal, either for them or you. Take your pick.

"It may be necessary to put... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while."

If there was ever a sentence that captured the spirit of today's liberal that is it. Screw democracy, we want to get our way first!

Just remember that these are the same kind of people that Obama has advising him. This is the very same cloth that John Holdren is cut from. Hell, he probably mentored some of these intellectual midgets.

There are no words for the ... (Below threshold)

There are no words for the breadth of nihilism regarding the appropriate response in dealing with the changing upward trending of climate change from posters on this blog. It is breathtaking.

For most have no idea who Lovelock is in scientific circles nor do they understand the Gaia theory and its antecedents.

When he speaks of inertia he knows what Gaia has in store. As far as evolution being clever enough to handle the complexity of Gaia he also knows that without some enforced sacrifice since democracy seems to have devolved into a free for all lately we will do nothing meaningful.

Of course we all know that all economies will thrive as a planet dies. Right?

The beauty of this being th... (Below threshold)

The beauty of this being that if he is correct about what's happening in the environment, then his Gaia theory is wrong and his credibility on the climate is shot. Just how exactly does he win on this issue?

You'll have to pardon Indie... (Below threshold)

You'll have to pardon Indie. His head is so far up his ass, he has difficulty breathing. Lack of oxygen to the brain tends to short-circuit one's thought processes.

Had there been an internet back in the days of; "Population Explosion"; "Coming Ice Age"; "Starvation ahead", you could be sure that Indie would be leading the parade.

He get's his kicks and grins watching "The Day After People".

Indie - ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Indie -

"There are no words for the breadth of nihilism regarding the appropriate response in dealing with the changing upward trending of climate change from posters on this blog. "

Nihilism...I don't think that word means what you think it means. /Inigo Montoya

Really. Nihilism as a philosophy argues that life is without meaning or purpose and that moral value structures are purely artificial and contrived. Your use (or rather misuse) of the word renders the sentence meaningless.

Should you actually want to talk about the "Upward trend in climate change"(a redundancy for an upward trend in climate would in itself be climate change), perhaps you would like to address for the audience the matter of the decline in global temperature over the last decade starting in 1998. Such a decline is acknowledged by leading climate scientists including the likes of Phil Jones.

We eagerly await enlightenment. Please try to use words you understand so you make sense.

It's obvious that most here... (Below threshold)

It's obvious that most here have no idea what the Gaia theory is and what phase Lovelock projects we are in.

Of course most here think that you can patch up a planet.

Wow, breathtaking.

Then come down from your hi... (Below threshold)

Then come down from your high horse and educate the ignorant masses...
We named the dog Indiana

Indie-I think that... (Below threshold)
jim m:


I think that there have been enough legitimate scientists like Gould and Dawkins dismantle your pseudo religion that we don't need to waste time on it here.

You can try to hide behind your incoherent beliefs or you can answer the question directly posed to you. There is nothing regarding your religious beliefs that is necessary to understand an answer to the question of why the global average temperature has declined over he last decade.

"breadth of" Nihilism <br ... (Below threshold)

"breadth of" Nihilism
A philosophy exemplifying an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.

Hmmm, climate change is not real huh?

And....... a downward trend would also be climate change but since we are talking warmer temps then its an upward trend.

AS for a decline that you might like to press as an argument it is bogus.

[BBC:] Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

[JONES:] Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

[BBC:] Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

[JONES:] No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

In other words it is extremely difficult to establish a statistically significant trend over a timer interval as short as 15 years.

The record-breaking temperatures in 1998 occurred after three decades of warming, starting in the 1970s. These decades saw an increase in global average temperature of about 0.45 °C. After 1998, however, warming slowed significantly -- trends over the past 10 years show only a 0.07 °C increase in global average temperature. Although this is only a small increase, it indicates that there has been no global cooling over this period. In fact, over the past decade, most years have remained much closer to the record global average temperature reached in 1998 than to temperatures before the 1970s. All the years from 2000 to 2008 have been in the top 14 warmest years on record.


How hard is it for you to truly educate yourself?

Indie, you buffoon -<... (Below threshold)

Indie, you buffoon -

Educate yourself on the Vostok data sets first, and tell all how your pathetically short life span and fraudulent GISS data sets compare. Then delve into a little paleoclimatology, and tell us why the Earth survived 5000ppm CO2 and relatively defined min/max temp ranges.


"How hard is it for you to ... (Below threshold)

"How hard is it for you to truly educate yourself?"

Evidently very hard, for you. But then you have to go to more than one place for information. And, God forbid, go to sites that propose an alternate view point.

How's that 'the dog ate my data' working out for you? Or the 'I'll destroy the data before I share it'?

Indie-It's this ha... (Below threshold)
jim m:


It's this hard:

Since 1998, according to NCDC's (that's NASA's National Climate Data Center) own figures, temperatures in the US have been dropping at a rate of more than 10 degrees F per century.

Here is the NOAA data graphed for you from 1998 to 2009. 2008 and 2009 we the coolest years of the decade and '09 was close to the long term mean for average temp.

Regarding the vaunted Met O... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Regarding the vaunted Met Office.

* In 2000 they stated that "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past."

* In 2005 They said "Based on climate simulations we think that UK winters would be around 5-10C colder on average..."

* On July 23, 2009 the UK Met Office issued their infamous winter forecast, ahead of the coldest winter in 50 years. It read:

"...Early indications are that winter temperatures are likely to be near or above average over much of Europe including the UK. For the UK, Winter 2009/10 is likely to be milder *(and wetter) than last year ".

They have since scrubbed this press release from their web site but it can still be found on the web.

*2007 - forecast to be the warmest year yet -Wrong, la Nina hit and temperatures plummeted.

* Summer 2007 Hot summer - Wrong, it was the wettest summer on record with cold daytime temperatures.

* A typical British summer 2008 - Wrong, it was the second wettest summer on record with cold daytime temperatures.

* Trend of mild winters continues 2008- Wrong, it was the coldest winter in 15 years.

* Summer forecast 2009 "Barbecue Summer" 2009- Wrong, another cool, wet summer.

So Indie, if you are relying upon the Met Office for your weather info look elsewhere. Well actually you have to now because they have stopped making seasonal predictions because they suck at it so much.

[BBC:] Do you agr... (Below threshold)
jim m:
[BBC:] Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

[JONES:] Yes,...

Jones is playing games with statistics. He is looking at decade averages to avoid looking at the trend created by ten years of temperature data.

In the science world we call that unethical manipulation of your data. When you deliberately choose an averaging method to get the result you want when simpler methods yield the opposite result, you are not acting ethically.

Jones is including data longer than the dates he is being asked about. His responses reflect the change in the rate of warming when you look at long term averages. So naturally, his long term averaging makes it look like temp is still climbing when it isn't. When he averages over decades he obliterates decade long changes in temperatures.

Jones is on record saying hat there hasn't been statistically significant warming and that it is a big problem for global warmists.

Sorry fool, but your source... (Below threshold)

Sorry fool, but your source, wattsupwiththat.com, is maintained by weatherman Anthony Watts, a proven fraud.

AS for how hard it is to truly educate yourself>>>>>>>



AS for how hard it... (Below threshold)
AS for how hard it is to truly educate yourself>>>>>>>


So, you agree that democracy needs to be suspended because of the weather?

<a href="http://www.ecoenqu... (Below threshold)
I am a strange one when it ... (Below threshold)

I am a strange one when it comes to AGW. Do I think that adding CO2 to the air increases the surface temperature? I think it does. Is the warming significant? If by significant you mean a tenth or two then the answer would be yes, but most folks (scientists included) think that amount of warming isn't significant. The only way we could get any really significant warming is if some positive feedbacks exist that provide the main drive towards higher temperatures. Positive feedbacks do exist and the AGW crowd can rattle them off in what would be an impressive fashion if they didn't sound so like memorized talking points (they are). There is no evidence at any time in the past that the CO2 levels triggered sudden increases from positive feedbacks so if they exist, there must also be negative feedbacks to offset them.

I see no real evidence that CO2 plays a significant role as a driver of climate.

Leftists & statists are frightened by freedom of/by/for the people. They view the average Joe as being too stupid or ignorant or lazy to "do what is right", so they intend to tie the Gulliver of freedom with thousands of tiny strings, adding a few more each year so as not to wake the sleeping giant while making the world safe from his "stupid" actions. They rationalize they are doing us a favor. The best, most patriotic, thing we can do is throw them all out come November.

If someone tells me it's co... (Below threshold)

If someone tells me it's cold outside, Indie, and when I came in it was warm, I'll take a look for myself. If the birds are panting in the heat, I'll think they're wrong. If there's snowdrifts, I'll believe them.

I'll judge for myself what the facts are, based on information I gather - and from what I've seen the folks pushing the global warming are more wedded to their models than to reality.

Reality ALWAYS trumps simulations, so if a model says we should be warming, but the thermometer doesn't match - and the people who wrote the model are insisting that we MUST behave as if the MODEL is correct and REALITY isn't, then I think they've got their heads up their collective asses on the issue.

Besides - one thing that I've asked before and never seen - what's the PROPER temperature we should be at, disregarding such minor quibbles as solar variability? Maybe you'll have the answer for that - the folks on the warming blogs just don't particularly seem to care, so long as they get their way on it all.

Indie, anyone can pose a "t... (Below threshold)

Indie, anyone can pose a "theory."
Without concrete evidence presented as proof,
it is not fact.

Wonder if those NOAA predic... (Below threshold)

Wonder if those NOAA predictions of 'Katrina like hurricanes now becoming the norm'.

The Guardian is still being... (Below threshold)
Tsar Nicholas II:

The Guardian is still being published?!

Instead of arguing again ab... (Below threshold)

Instead of arguing again about global warming, the focus of the article is this "It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while."

So if we put Democracy on hold for a while, what goes in its place? It seems obvious that he means some form of totalitarian rule.

Honestly, I find THAT scarier than global warming.

"How hard is it for you to ... (Below threshold)

"How hard is it for you to truly educate yourself?"

Evidently very hard, for you. But then you have to go to more than one place for information. And, God forbid, go to sites that propose an alternate view point.

How's that 'the dog ate my data' working out for you? Or the 'I'll destroy the data before I share it'

It's clear that the warmist... (Below threshold)
jim m:

It's clear that the warmists are scared. They are openly calling for an end to democracy so they can shove their medieval lifestyle choices on the rest of us.

I'll believe that they are serious when they stop jetting about the globe going to their warmist revivals and start living in a hut with no electricity like they demand the rest of us do.

Jim m - It's about... (Below threshold)

Jim m -

It's about setting up a classist society. At the top are those who believe 'properly', or at least pay lip service to the ideas. (It's hard to argue Al Gore is being eco-correct like Ed Begley.) For them, all excesses are permitted and condoned. Private jets? Certainly! Mansions? Of course! Excessive consumption? For a Priest of Gaia, why not? They DESERVE it.

For everyone else? Forget it. Energy rationing, food rationing, transportation restrictions? It's all something we must get used to, because the Priests of Gaia say we must.

And isn't it funny where that societal divide seems to hit on the Left-Right spectrum?

Giving it a rest overnight ... (Below threshold)

Giving it a rest overnight I thought I'd come back to see how the deniers are doing. No surprises.

It's extremely obvious that most here will never give up anything they consider to be their rights as American usurpers of the worlds finite resources by supporting such a pimped lifestyle while spreading democracy at the point of a gun.

Of course that is to be expected. That's freedom American style. 4% of the worlds population egregiously using 25% of the worlds resources and unwilling to admit the waste produced from such consumption has anything to do with fouling the nest.

Reaching beyond science into holes of ignorance yet unexplored in order to hang onto those shiny beads.

Breathtaking arrogance.

Yeah, indie. Sure.<p... (Below threshold)

Yeah, indie. Sure.

We couldn't just examine the info and come to a different conclusion and then have you accept that as valid, now can we?

Ah, freedom of thought. It only applies when you think properly.

IMO, the issue isn't that w... (Below threshold)

IMO, the issue isn't that we've experienced the normal cyclic warming cycle due to solar activity, but that there is little or no hard evidence or scientific proof that man has had any contribution to the warming.

The claims that it is based on scientific understanding how greenhouse gasses trap heat is not supported by the data which shows absolutely no correlation between temperature increases and the presence of greenhouse gases.

The simulation models show that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations increases temperature because that's how the simulation algorithms were programmed to respond to it. It's a meaningless claim.

So, where is the proof of man's contribution?

So, where is th... (Below threshold)
So, where is the proof of man's contribution?
Al Gore says it is so, therefore anyone who is skeptical is a nihilist denier.

Just ask Indie.

Should anyone be around to ... (Below threshold)

Should anyone be around to record or read it, history will scratch it's head and wonder how such greed, selfishness and arrogance overwhelmed solid and honest science and in the process condemned hundreds of millions to hardship, deprivation, dislocation and death.

When things are too far gone to effect meaningful change the Mea Culpas will ring hollow.

"They who can give up essen... (Below threshold)

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety - Ben Franklin"

Indie remember those words when someone talks about the need to suspend democracy for the safety of the planet.

...in the process condemned hundreds of millions to hardship, deprivation, dislocation and death.

You mean like the drought and famine to 25% of humanity that will be caused by the Himalayan glaciers melting in 25 years?

Democracy? Hahahaha... (Below threshold)


Your corporate friends (and Bush's 8 year swath of destruction) have you convinced that they are worried about your liberty while decimating the commons? Oh pleeze.

Remember Lovelock lives in England. Over there they have much more a social democracy than we could ever hope for. You think those corporatist buddies of yours who are burning up the earth and convincing you it's good for you care about your safety or your liberty?

And your economy is based on the HEALTH of a planet. Without it you die.

You're a giggle Eric.

Democracy? Hahahah... (Below threshold)
Democracy? Hahahahahahahaha

Just so I understand where you are coming from, do you agree with Lovelock's point that Democracy may need to be put on hold to battle climate change?

Let that sink i... (Below threshold)
Tom W:

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.

Do you really think the opinions of those who know squat about Newton should be valued as much as those of trained physicists? I don't. Nor does it follow that recognizing their expertise implies they are 'rulers', anymore than your doctor, garage mechanic or anybody else who does a job you rely on but can't do yourself is a 'ruler'.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy