Don’t you get the impression that global warming advocates compete to see who can make the most outrageous comments? British scientist James Lovelock just moved into first place.
The Guardian UK reveals Lovelock’s latest lunacy:
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.”
Get your limey ass in line, pal. Here in the good ol’ USA, we’ve already put democracy on hold for healthcare. Can’t put it on hold for anything else for the foreseeable future.
Source: Guardian UK
This post was last modified on March 31, 2010
View Comments (3)
“Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being."
Wow. What a specious comment, particularly when one reflects upon what Lovelock did during World War 2. He tried to avoid military service by registering as a conscientious objector in a Britian that replaced Winston Churchill with another democratically elected Prime Minister while the war was still being fought. When, exactly, was democracy placed on "hold" while Lovelock was a participant in that particular war? This guy is just a hypocritical old fascist.
“Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being."
Yeah... The Romans did that and wound up with a line of Cesar Tyrants in charge (well it was way more complex then that, still it happened in part that way). We have wars in modern life and we have democracy. Modern Democracies do NOT turn into police states in the case of war. We don't do that- no need.
Lovelock is showing thinking that is about 1000 years or so outdated.
Also there is no 'climate war'. Not unless some "Wag the Dog" (see that movie) hype that is being made from the left is to be believed.
AGW is crap. Plain and simple.
Want to read a very odd but kind of cool book?
"A Roadmap of Time: How the Maxwell/Wheeler weather-energy cycles predict the 'history' of the next 25 years"
A little pricey and a bit weird, still a neat read:
http://www.amazon.com/roadmap-time-Maxwell-Wheeler-weather-energy/dp/0137813856/
Fringe data geeks in the 1970s knew that all life was about cycles and there is no need to fear the coming and going or cycles in life. We can't make nor stop weather cycles no more then we can turn off and turn on the sun- just ride it out and that is that...
Crazy left wing nuts want to end democracy because "man is making the planet warmer!" Tree Hugger Please!
Doesn't radical Islam use the same pick up line that people are too dumb to live their own lives (so Islam will live/run it for you!) and there is a war with those who submit vs those who don't; so humanity needs to give up all rights and come under the rule of Islam? Its the only way to save and better us all... Through being forced to be owned and being placed under the will of some psycho who "knows best". All for 'our own good'.
So, when I was in college, I read Lovelock's book on Gaia. I even did my thesis based on a few of his premises. The idea he puts forward is that the earth acts as a single, complex organism to maximize the opportunity for life to flourish on the planet. These systems regulate the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere at just the point where life can fourish, yet not so much that fires are a huge risk. Cloud cover increases when the sun's output increases and so on. So according to his theory, earth should be able to handle the changes on its own....except when there is money to be made hyping AGW...then all the sudden the earth is vulnerable.
Sorry, Gaia, Im not falling for the banana in the tailpipe!