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.
Interesting timing: I just finished reading State Of Fear by Micheal Crichton – it deals extensively with Global Warming and Climate Change (two different, but related, topics) as well as general enviromental science.
The good thing about him as a technical writer is that he sites references for data, good references.
It forced me to re-evaluate what I thought I knew about the climate, enviroment, and global warming.
Overall the message is: We don’t know anywhere near enough to make most of the predictions that are being made – they are almost all guesswork – but we are changing the enviroment – we just don’t know what the impact of it will be.
Plus – 2100? No-one has been able to make a weather and climate model that is accurate for the next 5-10 years, let alone 95. I find that very dubious – and I am in favour of enviromental controls.
Idiotic prognosticators can say what they please without consequence.
Seeing that a recent study of methane emissions is from plants…. I don’t think it is TOTALLY the human race’s fault and responsibility. If we could just rid the world of cow belches and plants global warming may be reversed.
How about this for a theory….. if it happens (global climate change), there isn’t one thing mankind is going to be able to do to change it.
I forgot…. that type of theory doesn’t warrant or scare the hell out of you enough for scientific grant money – although it’s scientific-waste-of-time-crap investigation.
Seems to me that most of these theories are based on selective analysis of anecdotal evidence, backed by whatever computer model was cooked up to support their predictions. There isn’t even universal agreement on any of this, and consensus of a community does not equal fact anyway.
Just like with the dinosaurs, if we’re meant to face mass extinction, there probably isn’t too much we can do about it.
Global warming = bad, but…
“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”
The implication with statements like this is that major climate changes never happen, which is not true. Besides worldly climate changes, sometimes quite drastic, we also get the occasional gigantic meteor hitting the planet throwing everything out of whack. What we do to the environment is definitely not kosher, but it’s not like worse doesn’t happen and hasn’t happened on Earth without humans having any part of it.
Just an observation. If the planet warms to the point where the only climactically habitable places are at the poles, won’t the only available land be at the antarctic?
Useless BS, wait that should be the response for the sport stats story. O well, it works for this story too.
Sweet!!! That means we can pollute, strip mine, and skip regulations for industry, ignore problems with mercury etc. ‘Cause if it is too late and we are all screwed anyway, then we can be as responsible for the world around us to the same level that the citizens of New Orleans were responsible for voting tax approval to levee upgrades with no further consequences.
Actually, on a geological scale Earth has been running out of time long before humans came on the scene. During the time of the dinosaurs the Earth’s atmosphere was composed of a larger percentage of CO2 than it does now, but the Sun was also putting out less energy. As the Sun has heated up, the percentage of CO2 has steadily declined. If humans hadn’t come on the scene, then most life on the planet would eventually disappear in a few million years. A few million years is a long time, but not compared to the 3 billion years of the existence of life on this planet. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe in the “Gaia theory”, but it seems amazing that towards the last part of life on this planet that an intelligent species arises, whose greatest claim to fame is the ability to manipulate the environment to suite itself. Now, I don’t know what solution that someone else could come up with, but it seems to me that all that’s necessary is to launch enough panels into orbit to reflect enough of the Sun’s energy away from our planet to keep the temperature at the right level.
You’re right Mike,
I love lead in my water! PCBs are a great chaser when drinking whiskey. Mercury has the added advantage of allowing our children in the future (if any) be able to track our where abouts by the amount in our dung. We can be just like Lewis and Clark!
But Mike – I have it on great authority from Duhbya and Paul T – Global warming is BS and Pollution is a commie liberal plot to take money from deserving rich people like Ken Lay and hurt harmless industries, like Dow Chemical. I understand that the people of Bhopal, India actually want Union Carbide back to apologize for dying in such large numbers when Union Carbide gassed them in 1984..
So remember – shit where you eat – it really isn’t pollution anymore.
I’m off to buy a house in Love Canal. Tata.
I agree with Michael. What is the problem with erring of the side of caution? Maybe we don’t develop quite as quickly, is that a bad thing.
What is the cost if we are wrong about climate change and we are effecting the Earth’s climate? We are screwed.
I can’t believe so many people are so selfish that they won’t even consider changing their behaviour and attitudes because they say that we can’t be sure.
If you aren’t frigging sure then perhaps we should start being CONSERVATIVE instead of stripping the planet.
On the other hand, I can’t wait for all the liberal Californians who have built multi-million dollar homes on the coast line, to watch as those homes are reclaimed by the sea. Just the thought makes me giddy. I imagine they with get the goverment to spend billions to build dikes and sea walls to protect their way of life. Literally taking food out of mouths of the poor.
We will all die from Skin Cancer. (Even us non-white folks!)
Paul,
What happens when you take a rubber band and stretch it as far as it goes?
1) It breaks
2) You can’t hold it anymore and it suddenly lets go and it snaps back and hits you really hard in the face.
3) You let go as gradually as possible and hope that when and if it hits you it doesn’t cause too much damage.
So even if you’re correct about the system “correcting” itself, and BTW I hope you are, the potential correction if #2 could be so energetic that it would be almost indistinguishable from scenario #1.
Why not be smart and start trying #3 and err on the side of caution? Right now it seems we keep pulling and pulling thinking that the rubber band can stretch a little farther. Let’s look at the issues and pass SMART environmental laws, one’s that incentiveize (sp?) as well as punish?
With the largest supercomputers ever built, scientists cant forecast accurately whether it will rain two days from now, but the media has no problems in reporting a 95 year forecast as fact, as long as it is bad news.
Paul,
I don’t think that any of us on this thread are that far apart. With out a doubt just stopping deforestation and cutting back on C02 would do wonders in easing of the “rubber band”.
There is no path back to primitivism unless we decide to reduce the population by about 99.9 percent. Besides if anyone thinks that even the 1890’s were better than now, I have a PBS “House series” they can watch.
I forget what person said this, but someone once said that “Life in past ages tended to be hard, brutish and short for 99% of the people involved”
The only way out is up. R&D coupled with smart usage of what we have now.
Hmm lots of the same old points and counter-points.
Surely everyone can agree – even if you don’t think Global Warming is a proven (I myself am increasingly skeptical) – that enviromental controls are a good thing? From a health perspective at least!
I’ll be showing my age….
Humm,,,, 1970’s,,,, “The New Ice-Age IS Coming!!! What Humans Have Done to CAUSE it and How to PREVENT It!!!”
Anybody recognize the hoo-rah? It’s why you get butane in your spray-can.
As for the tripe about “Mother Earth”,,, I agree. PURE TRIPE!
Anybody ever hear about FEEDBACK SYSTEMS?!?
FEEDBACK TO WEB-MASTER
Using Safari (10.3.9) and the frames aren’t working right!
After the page gets so long, there is NO WAY to get to the bottom to click on “say it”.
Also happens on the main page…
unless you WANT the older stories to be slowly scrolling off the bottom as they get older.
This post was done with Mozilla… and I’ll be double-checking the main page, too
Safari is a crappy browser!
On 10.3.9 it is anyhow. Only 10.4+ can use Safari 2 (I think) and that’s the only good version of Safari – less than that and you are better off using FF or Opera.
You all need to read silent spring. It did not happen. May not ever happen if it does it wont matter.
Do you realize how many generations of people on this planet have considered their time to be the end of days here on earth? Time continues to pass and yet people still continue to assume the end is near (be it global warming, divine nemesis, etc..)
I don’t know near enough to comprehend the situation; however, if it _is_ truly downhill in the not-too-distant future, I’m happy that I can be one of the few inhabitants of earth who was around when it all came apart.
#25 is brilliant, a self-referentially poignant yet acerbic deconstruction of the hoo-ha.
The relevance amazes me !!!
To all those who have wrote about climate change being BS remind me of an addict. You need your fix, be it booze, a narcotic, a thrill, or whatever. The very thought of not having your fix drives you crazy. Regardless of how harmful it may be, you DENY all thoughts except of the pleasure. You will go so far as to criticize those that DO know the harmful effects. You will even call them many, unflattering names and even question their parent’s marriage status.
Yup, you guys are all in denial. You can ignore or put off the evidence, but it won’t go away. Oh it will change as our knowledge increases, but it will still be there.
It is sort of like the fundamental religionists. You believe that because some small piece of evidence is questionable, the whole argument must fail. Your Intelligent Designer will come and save the day for you.
dave
Your error is weather forecasting is quite good right now. Probably close to 100% for two days out. If you ever notice though, they seldom say “it will rain today”. Usually more like “there is a 90% chance of rain today.
Here is a definition for FORECAST from the Free Dictionary.
1)To estimate or calculate in advance, especially to predict (weather conditions) by analysis of meteorological data.
This is not to be confused with a general weather pattern which are made up of averages or trends.
Silent Spring? How appropriate. Rachel Carson’s use of emotion and poor science led to the banning of DDT, which led to increases in malaria, which led to the deaths of millions of men, women, and children.
Now there is environmentalism at its worst! Depopulate the Earth, then we won’t cause it anymore harm.
The Earth will survive until the Sun goes blooey; humankind probably won’t. And who will be left to render an opinion/verdict on the Human Age? Dvorak, probably.
Pat, I’ve looked at the evidence. I’ve studied the statistical treatment of the data. And I reject their conclusions. Man is not responsible for global warming. I have no clue how you can equate my analysis of the data to being a drug addict in need of a fix.
Smith — it’s a shame that your reasonably accurate skepticism about DDT and malaria is obscured by an equally apparent monomania over folks who support a healthy and complete ecology.
Prior to reliance on DDT as the sole weapon in the battle against malaria, this scourge had been diminishing for thirty years. A whole range of tactics was abandoned for the magic bullet approach so beloved of politicians.
Additionally, contemporary methodology aims at new broad range — from genetic alteration of disease-carrying insects to appropriate residential hygiene to vaccines — which offers sounder long-range solutions than dropping back and punting. The solution may not be in the field, yet — but, then, your favorite substance isn’t accumulating the way it used to in the fatty tissues of animals — like human beings.
So, if only a small number of humans is left, in the Arctic (or Antarctic), then all the emissions currently being created by industry and keeping 5 billion folks alive will have stopped, and things will begin to cool.
The earth is indeed self regulating.
But as the young Woody Allen said in “Annie Hall” since the universe is expanding, ” what’s the point?”
Best Regards,
DAve
Eideard, my “apparent monomania over folks who support a healthy and complete ecology” comes from working in the environmental field for 16 years. I’ve dealt directly with writing environmental regulations and implementing them. I’ve dealt with regulators and environmentalist (I even attended a Rachel Carson lecture). I review toxicological studies and I talk to the experts that conduct them. I know the history of environmental law and its impact — both good and bad.
I know what good environmental science looks like. I know what environmental propaganda looks like. And after reading “Earth in the Balance,” I know what a totally incompetent jackass looks like.
I listen to any environmentalist that comes to the table armed with facts.
I’ve learned to turn a deaf ear to any variation of “… 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.” Unfortunately, 95% of any environmental discussion involves just this type of hyperbole.