Terrible reporting, like you say. Lovelock made predictions in 2006 (The Revenge of Gaia) concerning the end of the century.
There is still 88 years to ago, and yet the article claims that his predictions have turned out to be false. That he was wrong! Ridiculous! Also, I am sure we can think of lots of examples of people who made predictions, lost confidence and partially 'retracted', only for their initial predictions to turn out to be 'correct'. Einstein springs to mind & the cosmological constant. Neil neilpaulcummins.blogspot.co.uk On Thursday, May 17, 2012, Matthew Peter Hill <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think we need to worry too much about what Lovelock does and does > not think, especially through reporting such as that.. > > For some actual climate change science, this paper went up yesterday: > > http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00649.1 > > Showing that the the last 50 years has seen warming like no other period > over the last 1000 years in Australasia, and is very likely due to > anthropogenic influence. > > Matt. > > On 17/05/12 7:53 AM, "Matheus Carvalho" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Lovelock, the proposer of Gaia hypothesis, says his predictions (and others >> also) were exaggerated: >> >> >> http://www.examiner.com/article/gaia-author-james-lovelock-recants-on-global-w >> arming >> >> >> Matheus C. Carvalho >> Senior Research Associate >> Centre for Coastal Biogeochemistry >> Southern Cross University >> Lismore - Australia >> http://www.angelfire.com/pa/ostro >> >
