Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change from radically impacting on our lives over the coming decades. This is the stark conclusion of James Lovelock, the globally respected environmental thinker and independent scientist who developed the Gaia theory.
It follows a tumultuous few months in which public opinion on efforts to tackle climate change has been undermined by events such as the climate scientists’ emails leaked from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit.
“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.”
This isn’t going to end well.
Found by David Guaraglia.
A world without freedom is not a world worth saving.
The global warming thing is mostly BS because it states that humans are killing the planet (popular theme). In reality, it is humans killing humans. Humans can do a lot of damage to the skin of the Earth but the Earth will still be here. But if humans make the air, water and food toxic, they are just killing themselves.
In democratic style, if the majority of the humans want to put tons of toxic waste in their air and water, let them. This will probably make items cheaper to buy because of low disposal fees. It is better to have a cheap TV or shirt than to have toxic free food.
Where, on earth, is there TRUE democracy?
They don’t allow majority rule in mental institutions. But it doesn’t mean the staff know what they’re doing either.
Hi ho!
This is one of the difficulties of democratic society. Narcissism gets in the way of intelligent decisions if you are on the left. Greed and authoritarianism gets in the way if you are on the right. Funny that the left wants to make everyone feel good while respecting the environment. The right values profit, authority figures, and institutional power with social responsibility always put-off for some future generation.
This dichotomy is the reason our political system is currently so polarized. My tendency to comment on this stuff honestly is why I got attacked by the entire Tea Party Movement today. Thank goodness akismet can filter all the profanity from those who converged on my site to flame me because of a comment I made that got picked up by right-wing websites.
So basically I think there is a lot more to this idea than meets the eye, though we are too hooked on “stuff” for it to become part of a serious debate.
Has anyone pointed out to this character that his own GAIA theory says that the self-regulating planet will take care of any climate change issues. It’s self regulating!!
LOL GAIA
just when you think the Warmers can’t get any more ludicrous…….
The unflattering face of green fascism unmasked for once.
“Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being.”
Reminds me of this ass.
http://tinyurl.com/2v4zse
JCD – #26
It may be self regulating within a certain range of natural fluctuations. But when the system is given an artificial and large change, such as burning millions of tons of hydrocarbons in a relatively short period of time (a couple hundred years or so), then the system can get out of whack and won’t necessarily be able to correct itself in a short time. That’s the theory, anyway.
The problem with democracy is that THOSE in charge havent given those in the middle and bottom, a chance to PRACTICE IT.
We have been FED. Over many years, that BUYING is what we are for/to do.
WE have not been given TIME to watch and see, what is happening around us.
WE have not been given the ability to CHANGE things around us.
To have the option of going to counsel meetings and such, we need TIME. so that we can give an opinion. but what time do we have?
Time for Work
Time to pay bills.
TIME for the family..
TIME to sleep..
TIME to read/see what is happening.
Time to understand what is happening.
TIME to discern TRUTH..
I’ve never thought of “Gaia” as a real “Theory.” It implies or even just stops short of positing a thinking agency or goal oriented behavior in Planet/Mother earth. In a meaningless universe, such simply is not the truth. “The Earth” will be here until swallowed by the Sun. If the Earth was at one time a big ol ice ball until volcanoes spewed sufficient c02 to warm it up and in the future it could do that again, or there cold be a runaway system to overheat the planet==all this demonstrates is NOTHING about the earth and everything about hoomans very limited perspective when it comes to eons of time AND an overweening desire to anthropomorphize the universe.
We shake our heads and pat the superstitious on the head when this is done with religion===but here it is done with science. THE THEORY OF GAIA?????
Get Real.
Silly Hoomans.
When I read the title of the post, I thought JCD meant stop the TV show Democracy Now. Silly me.
“From the testicles of Uranus in the sea came forth Aphrodite. After Uranus’s castration, Gaia gave birth to Echidna and Typhon by Tartarus. By Pontus, Gaia birthed the sea-deities Nereus, Thaumas, Phorcys, Ceto, and Eurybia. Aergia, a goddess of sloth and laziness, is the daughter of Aether and Gaia.”
So…. if Gaia would just stop f*cking around…
“Lovelock says the events of the recent months have seen him warming to the efforts of the “good” climate sceptics: “What I like about sceptics is that in good science you need critics that make you think: ‘Crumbs, have I made a mistake here?’ If you don’t have that continuously, you really are up the creek. The good sceptics have done a good service, but some of the mad ones I think have not done anyone any favours. You need sceptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic.”
Thank you.
Shouldn’t that be “Anthropic?”
Actually, that quote is just more BS from Lovelack. I assume an unstated tautology at play. “Good” vs “Bad” skepticism??? I’m skeptical of how those judgments would be formulated?
In a vacuum, I assume he actually means “good” skeptics dither about the edges to make AGW a better fitting/more predictive/more accepted theory and that “bad” skepticism is of the type that says “Its not true.”
And you know Skeptic AOBCCDRFG==AFTER you are a skeptic, you still have to pick a side and conclude==otherwise you are just a nay saying chicken little Luddite of no worth at all.
Read the full interview here.
http://bit.ly/Why_Copenhagen_Was_Doomed
James Lovelock, at least, is an honest, unbiased climate scientist who has the current situation pegged.
A possible situation (not preferred or even exclusive, as some of you mistakenly assume) is, “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.”
But that statement was taken out of context. Quoted by itself it reeks of sensationalism. In the original interview, It was merely an observation on the reality we MIGHT be faced with. He gives a slew of other scenarios. But think about this… it took you 100 years to hash out health care reform, and you are STILL at odds with it. I think Lovelock was referring more to a situation where there was no doubt left about climate change… whether anthropogenic or not. He gave 2 examples…. if the Pine Island glacier in Antarctica were to break off and slip into the ocean (raising sea levels by 2 metres). or a return of the Dust Bowl in the mid-west. if those situations arose and some countries… perceived key players resisted to do anything, then there COULD be a war. If that were the case, are you going to quibble about putting democracy on hold… like being drafted into the army?
Re: #36… no, anthropogenic is more accurate to my overall meaning.
Re:#37, Lovelock describes what he means by good and bad skeptics in the original interview.
I don’t see you picking a side bobbo. Regardless of that, if the validity of the anthropogenic “concensus” on global warming were resolved… there would only be one side. I am a skeptic of the consensus, nothing more… a detail that you continually miss. Whether or not we are in danger as a planet, I’ll go with all scientific evidence that hasn’t been altered or biasingly(?) selective, is freely available for subsequent scrutiny, and isn’t embellished for sensationalism in any way. If we are is such grave danger, it is more important to focus on immediate solutions, and not who or what is to blame, an opinion that Lovelock holds. Blame is just a means to focus on politics.
Skeptic===”I don’t see you picking a side bobbo.” /// I have often enough. I see no proof of global warming, just best evidence for. We should stop adding co2 for a variety of reasons, not just AGW. I agree, all solutions have to be cost effective and doable/effective==not a c’mon for the next huge financial scam.
On an almost related issue, this is the first time I learned that tidal power is a no go. I take it that still leaves wave power though.
http://newscientist.com/article/mg20627546.600-tidal-power-no-thanks.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news