Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Every knee shall bow before AGW
Think of how much fun I have with my gay MS Paint Photobucket Classics in here........it would suck to high heaven if these meatheads converted to skeptics.
Not good news for the green radicals >>>>
James Lovelock: environmentalism has become a religion | Environment | theguardian.com
Not good news for the green radicals >>>>
James Lovelock: environmentalism has become a religion | Environment | theguardian.com
Take a wild guess as to how many climate scientists EVER gave any credence to Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis?
You love to find kooks spouting off and then claim that they're the leaders of the AGW "movement". Lovelock is a complete nobody in climate science and no one could care less what the man thinks.
James Lovelock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In early 1961, Lovelock was engaged by NASA to develop sensitive instruments for the analysis of extraterrestrial atmospheres and planetary surfaces. The Viking program, that visited Mars in the late 1970s, was motivated in part to determine whether Mars supported life, and many of the sensors and experiments that were ultimately deployed aimed to resolve this issue. During work on a precursor of this program, Lovelock became interested in the composition of the Martian atmosphere, reasoning that many life forms on Mars would be obliged to make use of it (and, thus, alter it). However, the atmosphere was found to be in a stable condition close to its chemical equilibrium, with very little oxygen, methane, or hydrogen, but with an overwhelming abundance of carbon dioxide. To Lovelock, the stark contrast between the Martian atmosphere and chemically dynamic mixture of that of the Earth's biosphere was strongly indicative of the absence of life on the planet.[7] However, when they were finally launched to Mars, the Viking probes still searched (unsuccessfully) for extant life there.
Lovelock invented the electron capture detector, which ultimately assisted in discoveries about the persistence of CFCs and their role in stratospheric ozone depletion.[8][9][10] After studying the operation of the Earth's sulphur cycle,[11] Lovelock and his colleagues developed the CLAW hypothesis as a possible example of biological control of the Earth's climate.[12]
Lovelock was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1974. He served as the president of the Marine Biological Association (MBA) from 1986 to 1990, and has been an Honorary Visiting Fellow of Green Templeton College, Oxford (formerly Green College, Oxford) since 1994. He has been awarded a number of prestigious prizes including the Tswett Medal (1975), an American Chemical Society chromatography award (1980), the World Meteorological Organization Norbert Gerbier Prize (1988), the Dr A.H. Heineken Prize for the Environment (1990) and the Royal Geographical Society Discovery Lifetime award (2001). In 2006 he received the Wollaston Medal, the Geological Society's highest Award, whose previous recipients include Charles Darwin [4]. He became a Commander of the British Empire CBE in 1990, and a member of the Companions of Honour in 2003.
Okay, flac, you can lay off the praise of your guru. We get it. You're one of Lovelock's gaian acolytes. Explains why your science is so touchy-feely.
It's funny how you people act like women scorned when your high priests abandon you. Or maybe you are like a bunch of children when your candy is taken away?
Okay, flac, you can lay off the praise of your guru. We get it. You're one of Lovelock's gaian acolytes. Explains why your science is so touchy-feely.
Westwall, how does Lovelock's gaian hypothesis tie in with your underwater UFO cities and your climastrology beliefs? That is, how do you reconcile all of your conspiracies into a grand master conspiracy?
One moment he seems to be saying that there's no climate catastrophe on its way, then he's saying that producing CO2 is a bad thing.“The government is too frightened to use nuclear, renewables won’t work –because we don’t have enough sun – and we can’t go on burning coal because it produces so much CO2, so that leaves fracking. It produces only a fraction of the amount of CO2 that coal does, and will make Britain secure in energy for quite a few years. We don’t have much choice," he said.
I don't understand this statement from the article
One moment he seems to be saying that there's no climate catastrophe on its way, then he's saying that producing CO2 is a bad thing.“The government is too frightened to use nuclear, renewables won’t work –because we don’t have enough sun – and we can’t go on burning coal because it produces so much CO2, so that leaves fracking. It produces only a fraction of the amount of CO2 that coal does, and will make Britain secure in energy for quite a few years. We don’t have much choice," he said.
Why is it a bad thing if it's not causing any problems?
The mechanisms that provide a positive feedback to CO2-induced greenhouse warming are relatively simple and well defined. They are not "magical".
I love the way Lovelock is first presented as a "guru"; an intellectual leader of the "warmists" and then characterized as a whack job. You ought to try harder to keep your stories straight.
In my opinion, Lovelock is closer to a whack job than he is to a serious or significant scientist. He has has essentially NOTHING to do with the rise of global warming concern. This thread is more pointless crap from the deniers - who have nothing else to fling.
The mechanisms that provide a positive feedback to CO2-induced greenhouse warming are relatively simple and well defined. They are not "magical".
I love the way Lovelock is first presented as a "guru"; an intellectual leader of the "warmists" and then characterized as a whack job. You ought to try harder to keep your stories straight.
In my opinion, Lovelock is closer to a whack job than he is to a serious or significant scientist. He has has essentially NOTHING to do with the rise of global warming concern. This thread is more pointless crap from the deniers - who have nothing else to fling.
Simple......yes, the basics are simple. Well defined? Not by a long shot. You guys haven't even been able to agree on whether clouds are negative or positive forcers. That's the whole problem with AGW theory.
You focused on CO2 and only CO2 and so long as the temps were rising you were OK. But, when the temps flattened out, and in fact started to drop, then you were in trouble. You had so focused on ONE thing that you were then far, far, far behind the curve in research.
You fell into the trap of believing your computer models (because it WAS so easy). Now that it has suddenly gotten much harder you guys are simply out of your depth. Because the climate engine that drives this planet is COMPLEX AS HELL! And you guys have no clue just how complex it is.
