Father" of Global Warming changes his mind, says Doomsday scenario not likely

There are tens or hundreds of thousands of scientists working on issues related to climate change.

The vast majority do not agree with Lovelock.

I didn't agree with his views when he positioned himself as a "touchy feely" far leftist and I don't see some reason to now see him as smarter than the majority of scientists just because he flip flopped.

You don't even know what he will say even just a year from now - even if we make no scientific progress in that time.

We have to learn to be good at accepting science.

Searching out some guy who merely confirms your belief is called "confirmation bias" and is a logical fallacy.

Plus, we can't just flip to the view of the last guy to hold a microphone.

 

Interesting claim, names and credentials please. Somewhere between 20,000 and 200,000 will do.

 

I strongly agree with increasing our interest in "adaptation". Scientists do not point to any likely solution that would stop warming where we are today. So, temperature IS going to continue rising and that is going to mean continued change in water distribution, agricultural success, mass movement of people, etc.

For example, the case of China and Bangladesh should be making us think about international water rights, as deviation of rivers is an obvious threat.

I think your idea of promoting global economic growth by burning more fossil fuel locally is, well, strange. More than that, the anthropogenic connection is strong enough that we should be doing something about that.

 

This has been asked and answered over and over and over again.

I'm not going to look it up again.

If you want to find out, it's reasonably doable if you have a search engine. There are lots of people interested in this question, obviously.

 

Nor do scientists point to any technology or carbon tax rate that will significantly slow the current warming rate even if you believe that it is all AGW.

The best way to increase the standard of living in third world countries is to provide them inexpensive electrical power available 24/7/365. Read more - "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels."

 

The Paris accord is a reasonable compromise step forward.

I'm not a big fan of the fossil fuel industry argument. They have extreme self interest and move ONLY when there is major financial gain to be had. Variations in fossil fuel price aren't going to solve third world agriculture or global water crises.

For example, today China is rerouting a significant river that flows into Bangladesh - a country that can't feed itself.

Nothing we do to help fossil fuel companies become richer is going to stop the impending disaster that represents.

 

Interesting character the author - seems he is in favour of child labour

https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/review-the-moral-case-for-fossil-fuels-really

And this is an example of what I have been talking about with the denialists fawning over rubbish like this where there is a clear agenda and that is to sell books and make money lecturing but do not believe scientists working in institutions where the outcome is not dependent on funding ie NASA or the BOM

 

Priceless - the first thing you do is look for smears against Mr. Epstein on the internet. It does save the time and effort of actually reading his book which makes the case that the best way to increase standard of living in third world countries if to provide inexpensive fossil fuel electrical power plants which would supply electricity 24/7/365 and alleviate the child labor issues in those countries. Nice job.

 

What effect will the Paris accord (if the targets are met) have on global average temperature ?? And what are the economic costs of meeting the Paris accord ?? What, no cost vs. benefit analysis ??

Fossil fuel power plants located in third world countries will have the effect of alleviating poverty, hunger, and child labor in those countries with no significant effect on global average temperature. Fossil fuels are very inexpensive and readily available. Why does the UN not use them to alleviate world poverty.

- - - Updated - - -

The vast majority are paid to not agree with Lovelock.

 

No I was looking for the book itself which you did not bother to link to - and found this critique. After that though why would I spend money on a book written by a clueless crank?

 

You can't link to a book. You have to go to the library and actually read it.

But more pricelessness - too funny.

 

Why would they want to invest in old technology?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Kenya

 

Yes, I think there should be more cost vs. benefit analysis.

However, the costs of warming are incredibly high and for us to have no global policy going forward is beyond ridiculous.

The idea that ANYONE is paid to disagree with Lovelock is ridiculous.

There isn't any argument in favor of some world wide conspiracy of science. Science is designed to reject such nonsense.

 

Funny stuff. Total capacity today is ~ 600 MW. They hope to have ~ 5500 MW by 2030. Coal fired power plants typically produce 3000 MW. Why should the citizens of third world Kenya have to wait 14 years when they could have 2 coal fired power plants "now."

 

Global warming is a net positive for at least the next 3 deg C. It continues to be a benefit for developed countries but a negative for third world countries. So the goal of global policy should be to adapt to the warming by increasing the standard of living in third world and developing countries.

The gov pays scientists to produce science on AGW and it's costs. Science has become politicized by the gov entities that pay the universities for the research that they do.

 

Newsflash!!! Coal; fired power stations need coal which costs money Geothermal, which is still under further construction, is generated without having to keep buying fuel. That is why they are called "renewables". Kenya is investing in its future as they will not need to commit to coal

Added bonus they do not get pollution

 

Why would you read a book while being clueless concerning the author???

That makes no sense to me at all.

Most people look up reviews before spending a couple hours on a movie - and that's just entertainment!

 

Climate disruption combined with sea rise is starving people in Bangladesh right now.

The multi-year drought in Syria was a major exacerbating (or maybe even causal) element in the situation in Syria.

If you have a "get rich quick" plan for the world, please let us know! Why wait??

Science rewards those who blow away theories.

Einstein, Galileo, Darwin, etc., etc. - these are the names we know, and the reason is that they upset the apple cart.

My bet is that nobody on this board knows the name of ANY physicist of Einstein's era whose work was in support of the previously established model. In fact, it's even less likely that anyone knows the names of any of the numerous physicists since Einstein who tested his theory - including to today with the LIGO gravity wave tests.

In fact, the degree to which science rewards contrarians and new ideas is recognized as a real problem in science. Belgium, for example, is investing a few billion in pushing science more toward supporting and rewarding those who ARE validating incremental results rather that working toward brand new ideas that could blow away some notable portion of current thought.

Trying to control what science does is seriously difficult. If you want to start a conspiracy, you should pick some place other than science. Science is designed to repel that kind of thing.

 

By waiting for geothermal how many people will die ??

 

Why would you propose to wait???

I don't see anything about ANY energy source that involves waiting.

Do you?

 

Did you even look at the link ?? I'm guess no. Did you even look at the youtube video ?? I'm guessing no.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpymhQGcDUo

I'm just fine with Mr. Epstein's credentials and his concern for the third world economies and the contribution that fossil fuel power plants could deliver to those countries.

- - - Updated - - -

Please go back and read the posts.

 

If Bangladesh had a higher standard of living they could handle climate variations which is not climate change. The same goes for Syria although Assad has something to do with that as Obama sat on his hands and is responsible for the creation of ISIS.

The gov's of the US and western Europe have a global warming agenda and pay for the "science" to back that agenda up. Unfortunately the data doesn't agree with the "science." It's easy to control. Just follow the money.

 

You tube perceptibly less reliable than a used car salesman on bonuses

What credentials does he have? Apart from writing a book and starting a for profit think tank = whare his credentials

Has he studied economics? Sociology? Any science?

Remember this guy is out to make money out of People buying his books

 

So how are you going to improve the standard of living for those living in Bangladesh? More child labour?

 

Again priceless. He only writes books to make money from people who buy them. More of the same ol' from the alarmists.

- - - Updated - - -

Fossil fuel power plants.