• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

enjoy life while you can: in 20 years global warming will hit the fan

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,849
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Personally, I find it hard to argue against this. Basically said: AGW is real, but there is nothing we can do about it.

James Lovelock: 'enjoy life while you can: in 20 years global warming will hit the fan' | Environment | The Guardian

...More alarming even than his apocalyptic climate predictions is his utter certainty that almost everything we're trying to do about it is wrong.

On the day we meet, the Daily Mail has launched a campaign to rid Britain of plastic shopping bags. The initiative sits comfortably within the current canon of eco ideas, next to ethical consumption, carbon offsetting, recycling and so on - all of which are premised on the calculation that individual lifestyle adjustments can still save the planet. This is, Lovelock says, a deluded fantasy. Most of the things we have been told to do might make us feel better, but they won't make any difference. Global warming has passed the tipping point, and catastrophe is unstoppable.

"It's just too late for it," he says. "Perhaps if we'd gone along routes like that in 1967, it might have helped. But we don't have time. All these standard green things, like sustainable development, I think these are just words that mean nothing. I get an awful lot of people coming to me saying you can't say that, because it gives us nothing to do. I say on the contrary, it gives us an immense amount to do. Just not the kinds of things you want to do."
 
Last edited:
You know, while I believe it is still up in the air (and maybe it is correct), but the "sky is falling" mantra is getting old. Wasn't it by 2015 that the **** was supposed to hit the fan from the Al-Gore days?

Plain and simple, the scare tactic is getting old by politicians. Not just talking about Climate Change, but the fear tactics in general.
 
You know, while I believe it is still up in the air (and maybe it is correct), but the "sky is falling" mantra is getting old. Wasn't it by 2015 that the **** was supposed to hit the fan from the Al-Gore days?

Plain and simple, the scare tactic is getting old by politicians. Not just talking about Climate Change, but the fear tactics in general.

I do believe that AGW is real, and it is going to hurt very much, but the use of the word "catastrophic" is further than is warranted by the science. I agree that the exaggeration is old, and it is harmful to boot.

I actually agree with Conservatives who say "Even if AGW is real, we still have to do a cost benefit analysis to determine which will hurt worse: The effects of AGW or the effects of giving up carbon fuels." I do wish we could get on with that analysis, and decide whether to reduce carbon fuel consumption or to make preparations instead. So, not only does the exaggeration harm credibility (in the perceptions of ignorant people), it also short circuits the potential dialogue about what exactly we ought to do.
 
Who needs preachers to instill fear, when we have politicians who use the same tactics?

Whether AGW is real, or whether it is not, the changes which occur in climate happen so slowly and gradually, that no amount of human intervention we can muster, will have enough counter-effects to even be discernible. I am on the skeptic side, and believe that the picture is much much larger than most people want to believe, because in admitting so, we are admitting that we really don't have any control at all, and if there's one thing that many humans cannot handle well, it's not having control.
 
cool%2Bstory%2Bbro.%2Baint%2Ba%2Bclue%2Bif%2Bthis%2Balready%2Bexists_ff5759_3462961.jpg
 
Great article. Thanx for the find.
 
I actually agree with Conservatives who say "Even if AGW is real, we still have to do a cost benefit analysis to determine which will hurt worse: The effects of AGW or the effects of giving up carbon fuels." I do wish we could get on with that analysis, and decide whether to reduce carbon fuel consumption or to make preparations instead. So, not only does the exaggeration harm credibility (in the perceptions of ignorant people), it also short circuits the potential dialogue about what exactly we ought to do.
This is the key. Nobody can show with quantified proof, that extra CO2 is warming the planet by the claimed amounts. We have defined levels of radiative warming for CO2 when it is by itself. This is repeatable in a laboratory condition. However, the complexity of the earth's atmosphere, it cannot be done. Experiments show CO2 warming insignificant to H2O because the H2O spectra is already saturated. The alarmists then claim a feedback to increased H2O, which cannot be experimentally shown to be correct. and is laughable by how much more H2O would have to be present to accomplish this miracle.

Look at any paper that cites the sensitivity of CO2. They reference an older paper, which references an older paper yet. the root paper comes from the 80's which defines the sensitivity using correlation = causation. No empirical quantification. Just assumptions of other forcing value changes.

Don't believe me. Look it up yourselves by following the cited sources in papers.
 
At first I thought the joke was gonna be that the article was already over 20 years old. You can certainly find alarming predictions that are.
 
predicts that by 2020 extreme weather will be the norm, causing global devastation; that by 2040 much of Europe will be Saharan; and parts of London will be underwater.

Been 6 years since that article.. Pretty sure we are no closer to any of these predictions even being on pace to come true.
 
Been 6 years since that article.. Pretty sure we are no closer to any of these predictions even being on pace to come true.
I didn't see his predictions so much the point as much as his belief we are rather insignificant in our attempts.
 
Personally, I find it hard to argue against this. Basically said: AGW is real, but there is nothing we can do about it.

It's been awhile since I read the book, but "Superfreakonomics" had a chapter on geo-engineering that was intriguing.
The theory was that pumping SO2 into the upper atmosphere--as happens in large volcanic eruptions--could help control global warming.
This planet is not getting off fossil fuels anytime soon.
Mitigation of anticipated global warming should be the goal.
 
Personally, I find it hard to argue against this. Basically said: AGW is real, but there is nothing we can do about it.
Sorry, but I missed this until I saw it quoted in post #11.

Can you please show me where James Lovelock talks about AGW? I only saw the mention of GW.
 
Sorry, but I missed this until I saw it quoted in post #11.

Can you please show me where James Lovelock talks about AGW? I only saw the mention of GW.

:rolleyes:
 
Why?

Is that some code that those of us not a member of the AGW church don't understand?

I actually went to the trouble of searching and reading a great deal of his works. Not once did he mention AGW.

Please...
Show me a link that shows I am in error.
 
Why?

Is that some code that those of us not a member of the AGW church don't understand?

I actually went to the trouble of searching and reading a great deal of his works. Not once did he mention AGW.

Please...
Show me a link that shows I am in error.
If you read the article linked in the op, there can be little doubt that the "A" in AGW is clearly inferred.
 
If you read the article linked in the op, there can be little doubt that the "A" in AGW is clearly inferred.

I see.

Something that Decca Aitkenhead does not clearly infer is the stated meaning of James Lovelock?

What an interesting logic you warmers have.

Did you not read this:

I actually went to the trouble of searching and reading a great deal of his works. Not once did he mention AGW.
 
I see.

Something that Decca Aitkenhead does not clearly infer is the stated meaning of James Lovelock?

What an interesting logic you warmers have.

Did you not read this:

Please...

Show me a link that shows I am in error.
 
I do believe that AGW is real, and it is going to hurt very much, but the use of the word "catastrophic" is further than is warranted by the science. I agree that the exaggeration is old, and it is harmful to boot.

It seems to be widely agreed that climate change will likely cause increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events, flooding, drought and difficulties in agriculture and food production generally. Plenty of people already starve, though that's more due to economic predation than global food scarcity.

How many more might starve due to declines in food production by the end of the century, due to climate change? I have no idea, myself. Certainly the human race is not in danger of becoming extinct. But severe effects even for a mere 5% of the population could mean something in the order of 400 million people. Some might call that a catastrophe. Some might not.
 
I see.

Something that Decca Aitkenhead does not clearly infer is the stated meaning of James Lovelock?

What an interesting logic you warmers have.

Did you not read this:

So, this paragraph from the article does not sound to you like he's taking the "A" in AGW as a given.

... "Perhaps if we'd gone along routes like that in 1967, it might have helped. But we don't have time. All these standard green things, like sustainable development, I think these are just words that mean nothing. I get an awful lot of people coming to me saying you can't say that, because it gives us nothing to do. I say on the contrary, it gives us an immense amount to do. Just not the kinds of things you want to do."
:rolleyes:
 
It seems to be widely agreed that climate change will likely cause increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events, flooding, drought and difficulties in agriculture and food production generally. Plenty of people already starve, though that's more due to economic predation than global food scarcity.

How many more might starve due to declines in food production by the end of the century, due to climate change? I have no idea, myself. Certainly the human race is not in danger of becoming extinct. But severe effects even for a mere 5% of the population could mean something in the order of 400 million people. Some might call that a catastrophe. Some might not.

But, the issue remains which would be cheaper or less painful:
A. Impeding our economy by draconian reductions in fossil fuels OR
B. Attempting to mitigate the starvation you speak of through other means

Plus we have to consider: Additional people will starve if we impede our economy through reductions in fossil fuels. The people on the margin are hurt worst by creating drags on the economy, and that ultimately translates to some people starving. So, does that mean that reductions in fossil fuels also causes 'catastrophe'?

Conservatives are motivated by greed, yes indeed. And for that reason, their arguments are suspect, I have to concede. But, greed also fuels our economy, and when you put a brake on the effects of greed, it doesn't necessarily mean you are going reach your goal without paying a price. In the case in point, greed has used fossil fuels to create prosperity, and if something else could create that same level of prosperity, we would likely already be using it. If we force a switch to other energy sources, it is likely that prosperity will be harmed.

Burning fossil fuels causes harm, but so does not burning them. We really do need to figure out which causes the greater harm, and not make emotional appeals such as the one in your post. It may very well be that the starvation level would be greater from NOT burning them.
 
So, this paragraph from the article does not sound to you like he's taking the "A" in AGW as a given.


:rolleyes:

I read that. It is followed by this:

He dismisses eco ideas briskly, one by one. "Carbon offsetting? I wouldn't dream of it. It's just a joke. To pay money to plant trees, to think you're offsetting the carbon? You're probably making matters worse. You're far better off giving to the charity Cool Earth, which gives the money to the native peoples to not take down their forests."

Maybe I should clarify since we do have impact outside of CO2. I have never seen him claim any ill effects from CO2. He always speaks of land use changes, and that is the extent of what I see.

I am at now fault now of doing as others, assuming CO2 with AGW, but it's because that is all you guys rail against.
 
Back
Top Bottom