According to Lovelock's long time friend Stewart Brand, Lovelock's "thinking" changed when he read Trenberth's "Tracking Earth's Energy"<http://www.deas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/Perspectives.pdf>, i.e. the Trenberth and Fasullo *Perspectives* piece in 16 April 2010 Science. As a result, Lovelock appears to have concluded that global warming has stopped and no one knows why.
According to Brand, Lovelock thinks climate scientists have become "overly politicized". Lovelock complained in an email to Brand: "my name is now mud in climate science circles for having dared to consort with sceptics". The "sceptic" Lovelock decided to "consort" with is none other than Garth Paltridge, author of "*The Climate Caper*". Those not familiar with the work of Paltridge may not need to know more that the fact that In the introduction to The Climate Caper, *Paltridge explains that the scientists involved with the IPCC are the worst thing that has happened to science in the last several hundred years*, because they are on a "religious crusade", "manipulating" the climate issue "into the ultimate example of the politically correct", acting as if "the science behind the issue", is "irrelevant". Lord Monckton wrote the "Foreword" to the book. Lovelock can't understand why climate scientists who formerly acted as if they took him seriously now view him in a completely different way. Brand's comments about Lovelock are in his online addition<http://web.me.com/stewartbrand/DISCIPLINE_footnotes/Afterword.html>to his book "Ecopragmatism", starting in the fifth paragraph. Brand wrote this in May 2010. Lovelock appears to be Brand's primary source on climate science. I wrote a piece<http://theenergycollective.com/david-lewis/47133/stewart-brand-fearless-follower-lovelock-not-science#_ftn4>last year aimed at provoking Brand into a public debate about how whacked out all this Lovelock gibberish is but Brand did not respond. On Thursday, April 26, 2012 7:25:29 AM UTC-7, Josh Horton wrote: > > Food for thought ... > > http://www.livescience.com/19875-gaia-lovelock-climate-change.html > > 'Gaia' Scientist Takes Back Climate Change Predictions > > A scientist and author, James Lovelock, who once predicted doomsdaylike > fallout from climate change has backtracked, calling his own projections > and those of others "alarmist." Even so, climate scientists stress > Lovelock's backtracking doesn't negate the reality of climate change, and > in fact, his past predictions highlight some overall misunderstanding about > planetary warming. > > Lovelock, who introduced theGaia > Hypothesis<http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2295-living-planet-pandora.html> > describing > life on Earth as a vast self-regulating organism some 40 years ago, also > stated that since 2000, warming had not happened as expected. > > "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really > happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," > Lovelock > told > MSNBC.com<http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite> > in > an interview. > > While warming may not have reached Lovelock's expectations, it is clearly > happening. Global temperature data shows the world is heating up. The first > decade of this century was the warmest on > record<http://www.livescience.com/19278-extreme-weather-decade-climate.html> > for > more than a century, part of a trend in increasing warmth over the past 50 > years, according to the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric > Administration. > > Lovelock's hypothesis has played a prominent role in the environmental > movement. > > In a conversation with MSNBC's Ian Johnston, Lovelock agreed that the > level of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising, but > contended that temperature has not increased as expected since 2000. > > This is a significant reversal for Lovelock. In a column written for the > U.K. newspaper The Independent in 2006, he wrote, "before this century is > over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that > survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable." > > Lovelock's views were not in line with mainstream climate science to begin > with, Michael > Mann<http://www.livescience.com/19064-hockey-stick-climate-wars-mann.html>, > a Pennsylvania State > University<http://www.livescience.com/19875-gaia-lovelock-climate-change.html#> > climate > scientist, pointed out. > > "As I see it, Jim's views were at the alarmist end of the spectrum of > scientific opinion, so frankly I see him largely as just coming back into > the fold of mainstream thinking," Mann wrote in an email to LiveScience. > "That having been said, he has made some statements which appear to reflect > a misunderstanding of what the science has to say." [Busted: 10 Climate > Change > Myths<http://www.livescience.com/19466-climate-change-myths-busted.html> > ] > > Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the independent National Center > for > AtmosphericResearch<http://www.livescience.com/19875-gaia-lovelock-climate-change.html#> > (NCAR) > in Boulder, Colo., went further: "The fact is he knows little or nothing > about climate change." > > The past decade has seen a reduced rate of increase in warming. but it > remains consistent with the overall > warming<http://www.livescience.com/18868-mild-winter-climate-change.html> > trend, > Trenberth said. > > Global temperatures fluctuate from year to year and over short time scales > as a result of natural variability. These ups and downs can obscure the > overall trend, particularly if someone is looking to generate a particular > result, he said. "You can take a piece of that record and get the wrong > view as to what is happening." > > Next year, Lovelock expects to release a new > book<http://www.livescience.com/19875-gaia-lovelock-climate-change.html#>. > He said he believes his projections went too far in a previous book, > "Revenge of Gaia" (Allen Lane/Penguin, 2006). Even so, Lovelock stressed > that humanity should still try to curb its use of fossil fuels, according > to MSNBC.com. > > *You can follow **LiveScience* <http://www.livescience.com/> *senior writer > Wynne Parry on Twitter **@Wynne_Parry* <http://twitter.com/#!/Wynne_Parry> > *.** Follow LiveScience for the latest in science news and discoveries on > Twitter **@livescience* <http://twitter.com/#!/livescience>* and on** > Facebook* <http://www.facebook.com/#!/livescience>*.* > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/LbhPSCtemU0J. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
