Monday, March 29, 2010

James Lovelock on the value of sceptics and why Copenhagen was doomed | Environment | guardian.co.uk
I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.
...
Careers have been ended by this affair and the reputation of the institution [CRU] will go down for a while. It's sad because there are some good people there. They have to clean their house if they know people are behaving badly. They have got a rotten job ahead, but it will blow over in a few years.
...
We're very tribal. You're either a goodie or a baddie. I've got quite a few friends among the sceptics, as well as among the "angels" of climate science. I've got more angels as friends than sceptics, I have to say, but there are some sceptics that I fully respect. Nigel Lawson is one... I wouldn't put it past the Russians to be behind some of the disinformation to help further their energy interests. But you need sceptics especially when the science gets very big and monolithic.

I respect their right to be sceptics. Nigel Lawson is an easy person to talk to. He's more like a defence counsel for the sceptics than a right-winger banging the drum. His book is not a diatribe or polemic. He tries to reason his case.
...
The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they're scared stiff of the fact that they don't really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven't got the physics worked out yet. One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models, but he said they hadn't got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 50 years from now? They've employed scientists to tell them what they want to hear. The Germans and the Danes are making a fortune out of renewable energy. I'm puzzled why politicians are not a bit more pragmatic about all this.

We do need scepticism about the predictions about what will happen to the climate in 50 years, or whatever. It's almost naive, scientifically speaking, to think we can give relatively accurate predictions for future climate. There are so many unknowns that it's wrong to do it.
...
Copenhagen was doomed to fail. But I think it was worth their while trying. A lot of people put their hearts into it. But I've never felt entirely happy with that sort of environmental wing-ding. It's obscene to have 10,000 people flying to Bali or whatever to talk about the environment. It just shows how hopeless humans are.
...
We shouldn't let the lobbies influence science. Whatever criticism might befall the IPCC and the UEA, they're nothing as bad as lobbyists who are politically motivated and who will manipulate data or select data to make their political point. For example, it's deplorable for the BBC whenever one of these issues comes up to go and ask what one of the green lobbyists thinks of it. Sometimes their view might be quite right, but it might also be pure propaganda. This is wrong.
...
[Lovelock on what it will take to convince the public that meaningful action is required to tackle climate change]:

There has been a lot of speculation that a very large glacier [Pine Island glacier] in Antarctica is unstable. If there's much more melting, it may break off and slip into the ocean. It would be enough to produce an immediate sea-level rise of two metres, something huge, and tsunamis. I would say the scientists are not worried about it, but they are keeping a close watch on it. That would be the sort of event that would change public opinion.
...
I don't know enough about carbon trading, but I suspect that it is basically a scam. The whole thing is not very sensible. We have this crazy idea that we are setting an example to the world. What we're doing is trying to make money out of the world by selling them renewable gadgetry and green ideas. It might be worthy from the national interest, but it is moonshine if you think what the Chinese and Indians are doing [in terms of emissions]. The inertia of humans is so huge that you can't really do anything meaningful.

[Lovelock on the surveys showing that public trust with climate science is eroding]:

I think the public are right. That's why I'm soft on the sceptics. Science has got overblown. From the moment Harold Wilson brought in that stuff about the "white heat of technology", science, in Britain at least, has gone down the drain. Science was always elitist and has to be elitist. The very idea of diluting it down [to be more egalitarian] is crazy. We're paying the price for it now.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Really a shame these people don't just suck it up and admit they don't know WTF they're talking about. That would buy more credibility than anything in my mind. But no, they keep on denying, lying, and hoping they propagandize this enough that it will just go away.

Anonymous said...

This guy knows global warming is a hoax and he's just covering his behind. It won't be long before he is thrown way, way under the bus.

I'll bet the warmists are slobbering over themselves, hoping Pine Island glacier falls into the sea.

Anonymous said...

It's more likely that the next big event is going to be tectonic in nature, as in volcanic or seismic.
Volcanic activity increases to twice it's normal rate in time of lower Solar Activity, as seen over the last 200 years.
Right now, Italian scientists are watching an undersea volcano come to life, and thier measurements indicate it is hollow in structure and could collapse, driving a big Tsunami across the Tyrhennian Sea.

Bob Armstrong said...

Interesting to see an admission finally that the physics is a mess . Properly calculated we are about 8c warmer than an gray ball in our orbit , and I have sought in vain for a proper calculation of how much of that delta is straight forwardly explained by our surface and atmospheric spectra .

Anonymous said...

What a ridiculous mishmash of contradictory nonsense . . ."The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. . . . they hadn't got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do." and yet . . ."I think it (Copenhagen) was worth their while trying."!? When success would have meant subjugating the world based on that same weak science? . . . When prominent scientists can't even recognize their own ill-logic, how can we trust their pseudo-scientific pronouncements?

Anonymous said...

I think that the O3 scare was a dry run for the AGW.
A lot of people paid for the hoax, some made money, the true winner is the UN that now pushes "solutions" for the AGW.
The plan worked so well.