Most importantly is his admission that “twelve years is a reasonable time”. It has provided enough time for a trend to develop that debunks the alarmist’s predictions. Finally Lovelock admits that which has been painfully evident to most skeptics, given the trend of those 12 years – “we don’t know what the climate is doing.”Anybody still believe in this shit?
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
"Never mind", Part the Third
Hey, another climate dickhead admits he's a fraud:
Via Powerline:
British Climate Scientists Recants His Alarmism
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Denier!
For the last 25 years, and damned proud of it. :)
In all fairness to Lovelock, I don't think he should be labeled a fraud. A fraud in my book is someone who deliberately tries to mislead people with something he knows to be false. Unless you think he's lying, he honestly believed what he wrote 12 years ago. He was wrong and he's admitting it now. That is true to scientific traditions.
I personally have always hated the way some people misconstrued the Lovelock "Gaia" theory. It was turned by some into pseudo-mystical BS. However, nothing in his original theory had any of that nonsense in it.
Quite a few people still believe that the climate is changing, based on physical evidence. Glaciers are melting in Greenland, etc. I would agree with you that the cause for this increase in warmth is hardly clearly defined, nor am I comfortable with projections showing us all roasting in 50 years. I am suspicious of the models used in the studies. Simulations aren't reality, after all, and the more complex the system the less fidelity one can expect from the model.
I mentioned the whole Gaia thing because I think the global warming debate is another example of a preliminary scientific theory being seized upon by people who don't fully understand it before it's been properly tested and using it to reinforce their per-existing beliefs. This is happening on both sides of the political aisle, I think.
The real science of climate is, I think, decades away from being able to reliably predict anything accurately. If there is a strong human influence, it may be impossible to ever predict anything since what people can influence, people can change.
Marstov, he had no science to back his earlier position. None.
Post a Comment