This reminds me of Nobel syndrome, where people who have high achievement and expertise in one area then feel free to pontificate on all sorts of things about which they know little.
To be ready to throw out a century or more of physical climate system understanding because of decadal scale tends in the hottest decade on record seems to be as reckless as excessive catastrophism. In lovelock's case, the pendulum seems to swing too wildly Maybe if he let it come to rest somewhere between catastrophism and complacency it would hang closer to the truth. Ken Caldeira [email protected] +1 650 704 7212 http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab Sent from a limited-typing keyboard On Apr 27, 2012, at 17:50, david <[email protected]> wrote: > According to Lovelock's long time friend Stewart Brand, Lovelock's "thinking" > changed when he read Trenberth's "Tracking Earth's Energy", 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 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 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 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 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 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, a Pennsylvania State University 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] > > Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the independent National Center for > AtmosphericResearch (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 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. 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 senior writer Wynne Parry on Twitter @Wynne_Parry. > Follow LiveScience for the latest in science news and discoveries on Twitter > @livescience and onFacebook. > > -- > 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. 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.
