GLOBAL warming is irreversible and billions of people will die over the next century, one of the world’s leading climate change scientists claimed yesterday. Professor James Lovelock, the scientist who developed the Gaia principle (that Earth is a self-regulating, interconnected system), claimed that by the year 2100 the only place where humans will be able to survive will be the Arctic.
“Our planet has kept itself healthy and fit for life, just like an animal does, for most of the more than three billion years of its existence,” he writes.
“Much of the tropical land mass will become scrub and desert; before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs that survive will be in the Arctic, where the climate remains tolerable.”
The scientist says he has been loathe to write such a depressing book: “I’m usually a cheerful sod, so I’m not happy about writing doom books. But I don’t see any easy way out.”
Lovelock’s wakeup call is followed by a number of comments from reputable peers, pro and con. All well above TV talking-head levels of discussion. Certain to be ignored by politicians who care more for inertia than investigation.
Smith — if you’ve “learned to turn a deaf ear” you’ve just contradicted the open mind you say you have.
Have you stayed up-to-date with any of the recent stuff published by the Max Planck Institute? Can you offer some mechanism other than another Ice Age to reconstruct melting permafrost? Virtually all the processes, observable and measurable, in progress that result in global warming have components that — at best — result in a steady rate of climate warming. At worst, there are components that accelerate the process.
Perhaps 95% of your conversations on environmental issues are as handicapped as you claim. And I wouldn’t suggest looking to the popular press [at least in the US] for hard evidence. But, to step away from the fact that we are the sole species on this planet willing and able to affect climate — good, bad or indifferent — and reject a whole body of evidence that leads to conclusions you disapprove of is as about as unscientific as you can get.
What makes you believe I reject evidence? I reject faulty conclusions based upon incomplete or suspect evidence. Do I believe global warming is occurring? Well since I don’t believe the world’s climate is static, then I have two choices: cooling or warming. The evidence gives greater credence to warming.
Do I believe man is responsible for global warming? Hmm, was man responsible for past cooling or warming cycles? No. So is man responsible for our current warming trend? I have seen no credible evidence that supports such a conclusion. Sorry, but the infamous “hockey stick” graph has been totally debunked. And I simply will not accept, without substantial proof, that climatologist can model a chaotic system with accuracy measured in decades.
My mind is open to facts, not propaganda. My skepticism is more than justified by the environmentalists repeated bastardization of “science” for political purposes.
Smith
You apparently have rejected “Silent Spring” as it just didn’t happen. Sorry buddy, but the success of the book co-opted the result. Carson’s observation of the damage DDT did to egg shells and the resultant decline in certain species was true. And happened. After the evidence was offered that DDT was found in nursing mother’s milk people started to pay attention.
The most important aspect of the book it the awareness it created. The pesticides and herbicides were now being monitored for damage down the line, or up the food chain. Even though the chemical producers denied any harmful effects or responsibility, that awareness forced Congress to regulate these chemicals.
And it wasn’t just the pesticides and herbicides that are now known problems. Shortly after Carson’s book, we became well aware of the emissions from coal fired generator plants. The sulfur and nitric acids were killing many lakes in the northern US and in Canada. The mercury was accumulating in the food chain.
Other chemicals were polluting our water. Many carcinogenic. Remember the river in Pittsburgh catching fire? Or the one everyone loves so much, Love Canal? Or all the Smog in London England that took so many lives? It was the awareness of what would happen if there was no effort to fix the problems. And that awareness started with “Silent Spring”, whether you like the book or not.
These problems didn’t kill off the whole population. But many people became much sicker and died prematurely. Over time, as things continued to worsen, yes, many more people would have become susceptible to more health problems and many more would die prematurely. If, as you claimed, you are in the environmental field then surely you are aware of the hazards associated with uncontrolled polluting.
the only safe place will be under the Ozone hole
Ah, Smith — so you blame environmentalists in the Rainforest coalitions — which started in the early 90’s. Are you sure you don’t prefer the politics of Lindzen who mostly blames it on Al Gore or James Hansen in 1988?
Of course, Lindzen ain’t doing too bad on the $2500 a day he gets for consulting with oil and gas companies. He denies there is any global warming at all.
My point is that — wasting efforts to satisfy your straw man don’t mean a damn to constructing reasoned science to ensure a better life for the species we belong to. Fine, you have a hangup about enviros — you consider them obsessive. Is that going to contribute anything to research and remedy? The enviros keep the heat on the politicians. Energy interests — I think we’d all agree — have enough bucks and political power to take care of themselves. Unless you really think they need your help.
But, wander back to the science most folks find accurate and compelling — whether it was the ornithologists who proved the effects of DDT, not the popular writer who brought it to the public. It’s the Max Planck Institutes of the world that are pointing to the myriad of causes and potential solutions of global warming [over whatever stretch of time it takes] — not the lobbyists and Lilliputians who would rather we focus on their political dislikes.