From that well-known right-wing website, msn.com. Please don't firebomb my home...I'm only the messenger:

'Gaia' scientist James Lovelock: I was 'alarmist' about climate change

By Ian Johnston, msnbc.com

April 23, 2012, 1:54 pm

MSN.com

James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.

Lovelock, 92, is writing a new book in which he will say climate change is still happening, but not as quickly as he once feared.

He previously painted some of the direst visions of the effects of climate change. In 2006,in an article in the U.K.’s Independent newspaper, he wrote that “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”

However, the professor admitted in a telephone interview with msnbc.com that he now thinks he had been “extrapolating too far."

The new book, due to be published next year, will be the third in a trilogy, following his earlier works, “Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth Is Fighting Back – and How We Can Still Save Humanity,” and “The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning: Enjoy It While You Can.”

The new book will discuss how humanity can change the way it acts in order to help regulate the Earth’s natural systems, performing a role similar to the harmonious one played by plants when they absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen.

Climate's 'usual tricks'
It will also reflect his new opinion that global warming has not occurred as he had expected.

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

He pointed to Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers” as other examples of “alarmist” forecasts of the future.

In 2007, Time magazine named Lovelock as one of 13 leaders and visionaries in an article on “Heroes of the Environment,” which also included Gore, Mikhail Gorbachev and Robert Redford.

“Jim Lovelock has no university, no research institute, no students. His almost unparalleled influence in environmental science is based instead on a particular way of seeing things,” Oliver Morton, of the journal Nature wrote in Time. “Humble, stubborn, charming, visionary, proud and generous, his ideas about Gaia have started a change in the conception of biology that may serve as a vital complement to the revolution that brought us the structures of DNA and proteins and the genetic code.”

Lovelock also won the U.K.’s Geological Society’s Wollaston Medal in 2006. In a posting on its website, the society said it was “rare to be able to say that the recipient has opened up a whole new field of Earth science study” – referring to the Gaia theory of the planet as single complex system.

However Lovelock, who works alone at his home in Devon, England, has fallen out with the green movement in the past, particularly after saying countries should build nuclear power stations to help reduce the greenhouse gas emissions caused by coal and oil.

Asked if he was now a climate skeptic, Lovelock told msnbc.com: “It depends what you mean by a skeptic. I’m not a denier.”

He said human-caused carbon dioxide emissions were driving an increase in the global temperature, but added that the effect of the oceans was not well enough understood and could have a key role.

“It (the sea) could make all the difference between a hot age and an ice age,” he said.

He said he still thought that climate change was happening, but that its effects would be felt farther in the future than he previously thought.

“We will have global warming, but it’s been deferred a bit,” Lovelock said.

'I made a mistake'
As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding.

Lovelock -- who has previously worked with NASA and discovered the presence of harmful chemicals (CFCs) in the atmosphere but not their effect on the ozone layer -- stressed that humanity should still “do our best to cut back on fossil fuel burning” and try to adapt to the coming changes.

Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the U.K.’s respected Met Office Hadley Centre, agreed Lovelock had been too alarmist with claims about people having to live in the Arctic by 2100.

And he also agreed with Lovelock that the rate of warming in recent years had been less than expected by the climate models.

However, Stott said this was a short-term trend that could be within the natural range of variation and it would need to continue for another 10 years or so before it could be considered evidence that something was missing from climate models.

Stott said temperature records and other observations were “broadly speaking continuing to pan out” with what was expected.

He said there did need to be greater understanding of the effect of the oceans on the climate and added that air particles caused by pollution – which cool the Earth by reflecting the sun’s heat -- from rapidly developing countries like China could be having an effect.

On Lovelock, Stott said he had “a lot of respect” for him, saying “he’s had a lot of good ideas and interesting thoughts.”

“I like the fact he’s provocative and provokes people to think about these things,” Stott said.

Keya Chatterjee, international climate policy director of environmental campaign group WWF-US, said in a statement that it was "hard not to get overwhelmed and be defeatist" about the challenges facing the planet, but suggested alarmist talk did not help persuade people to act to reduce climate change.

"While the problem is becoming increasingly urgent, we’ve found that focusing on the most dire predictions does not resonate with the public, governments, or business. People tend to shut off when a problem does not seem solvable," she said.

"And that’s not the case with climate change because we can still avoid its worst impacts. We know that we already have all of the technologies needed to slow climate change down. We only lack the political will to go up against vested interests," she added.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the leading body on the subject, the world’s average temperature has risen by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900. By 2100, it predicts it will rise by another 2 to 11.5 degrees, depending upon the levels of greenhouse gases emitted.

Asked to give its latest position on climate change, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said in a statement that observations collected by satellites, sensors on land, in the air and seas “continue to show that the average global surface temperature is rising.”

The statement said “the impacts of a changing climate” were already being felt around the globe, with “more frequent extreme weather events of certain types (heat waves, heavy rain events); changes in precipitation patterns … longer growing seasons; shifts in the ranges of plant and animal species; sea level rise; and decreases in snow, glacier and Arctic sea ice coverage.”

_________________
"New York City is a mismanaged carnival of stupidity that is desperate for revenue and anxious to criminalize behavior once thought benign."
--Alex Baldwin, unknowingly describing his socialist utopia.

Newsflash: It's the Sun that effects climate change on all the planets in our solar system, not my Hummer!

_________________
"My favorite part of riding a bike is when I get off the bike." - Jim Gaffigan

Just so everyone understands: that article doesn't debate any of the knowns of climate change. It's just one guy saying he thought it would be way worse than it is.

I think this is all a part of a natural change in globle temps. there was an ice age with glaciers that formed places like Yosemity. The earth warmed a lot befor we had internal combstion. It is still warming a little, but I think it will reach a natural turning point and start to cool again. Plants love co2 and sun, so we could see a rise in plant growth that could offset the rise in co2.

I don't like the idea of littering or just dumping hazerdous waste on the side of the road, but we might be to harsh on ourselves. The Earth it's self "polluts". Volcanos give off more "harmful" chemicals then we could ever hope to. Pine trees give off Nox witch is a harmful gas produced in car exhaust. I know this because I was a mechanic and I went through the smog classes. All living creachers give off co2. I don't know what we can do about that besides stop breathing, and I know someone that can atleast restrict that ability.

We alredy know this planet will not last forever, the sun will eventualy explode. So I don't know what to say, in a way they are right, but I don't think we should live out the next 64 billion years all depresed about it. Be thankful for what we have and ride it befor it's gone!

_________________
"IN THIS VERY MOMENT I SLAYED GOLIATH WITH A SLING"

so his 'gaia' hypothesis didn't pan out within the time frame he predicted. he obviously is not doing actual 'research' generating data in this discipline.

however, even with that, the article does not appear to debate climate change, and adds there may be natural buffers slowing down the process from previously anticipated rates. rates projected by someone who doesn't appear to be actually working in the field.

impressive.

_________________
Ambition is a poor excuse for not having sense enough to be lazy. ~Milan Kundera

More cred than the Leftists' God, Al Gore.

impressive.

_________________
"New York City is a mismanaged carnival of stupidity that is desperate for revenue and anxious to criminalize behavior once thought benign."
--Alex Baldwin, unknowingly describing his socialist utopia.

this is a good point. as the article implies there may be natural 'sinks' for handling such events that weren't included in previous 'alarmist' calculations/predictions. but what happens if those 'sinks' reach a threshold?

by analogy, your body can handle all sorts of abuse and recover. but overrun your body's thresholds for combatting an event, or better a combination of events, and you're suddenly on a slippery slope.

smoking, for example, can stress systems and impact the body's natural defense mechanisms. would you intentionally smoke to do that?

_________________
Ambition is a poor excuse for not having sense enough to be lazy. ~Milan Kundera

^^^ Good point.

I was watching a show on global warming and they said one thing they forgot to add into the forcast was the cooling effect clouds have... Wow. If you realy look at how perfect the Earth is, from it's iron core that produces a magnetic force field to our lucky distance from our modreate sun, we are so blessed. It is a shame to take it for granted. It may be the only one like it, and defenetly the only one exactly like it.

That being said I think enviromental issues are being exaggerated, and even used to gain power and impose exessive regulations on us all. Just like 9/11 was used to pass laws that would have never passed without some sort of "threat". Just like Pearl Harbor was used to get us into WWII. They would have been alot less motovational if we were told terrorists wher trying to distroy buildings or that the Japanese where planing to bomb us but it never happened. I get the feeling some people are actualy bummed that the globe is not warming as fast as they thought, almost like they want it to so we would be scared into change. We should take care of what we have but give me a break with all the scare tactics.

_________________
"IN THIS VERY MOMENT I SLAYED GOLIATH WITH A SLING"

yes, i couldn't agree more with the views of your argument. however, every issue has 2, or more sides to consider. 'fear' tactics are used by politicos to sway opinion, as you illustrated (mushroom cloud comes to mind as well), but such tactics are also used by 'pundits', who are not scientists, to sway the public and pressure the politicos. and then there is the large corporations that have a lot of money at stake to reduce regulations and can prompt huge private, as advertisers for example (of the 'pundits'), and political sway ($$$). and on, and on. an old example being the tobacco industry. for decades it countered the science, often with its own science to raise doubt. i remember the 'there is no direct link of smoking to cancer' campaigns when i was a kid. these successful campaigns were not to induce fear, but to quell it along with the facts allowing people to feel at ease that smoking is safe and will not impact their health. there was a lot of money to be made keeping that illusion as long as possible, and a lot of unfortunate people bought into it.

yes, this is a complicated issue and with $$$ on all sides (personal, corporate, political) many of the players seem to just add to the confusion, quite likely intentionally. in my own personal viewpoint, i would prefer more regulations until the hypothesis is proven wrong, than less regulations until proven correct.

but to be clear, and as ld00d mentioned, this article did not discount global warming and all the fun stuff associated with it, just that it is on a slower course possibly due to variables not considered in the earlier 'alarmist' predictions of this guys 'gaia' hypothesis. as you said, we are blessed.

_________________
Ambition is a poor excuse for not having sense enough to be lazy. ~Milan Kundera

Brother, I think we are coming up the same mountain from different sides, but on this we can agree.

_________________
"IN THIS VERY MOMENT I SLAYED GOLIATH WITH A SLING"

Wind farms have been touted as the technology of the future and a way to create sustainable energy. But new research shows that wind farms may have a negative effect on area surface temperature.

Researchers at SUNY New York looked at nearly 10 years of satellite data of areas around wind farms in Texas. Researchers chose Texas because it has four of the world’s largest wind farms. The results showed night-time surface temperatures around areas with high volumes of wind turbines were 0.72 degrees C (1.3 degrees F) higher than areas where no wind farms existed.

What caused the increase in surface temperature? During the evening, the earth cools and brings the air temperature down. But near wind turbines, turbulence from the blades keeps the air warmer.

Discovery News reports:

“Given the present installed capacity and the projected growth in installation of wind farms across the world, I feel that wind farms, if spatially large enough, might have noticeable impacts on local to regional meteorology,” Liming Zhou, associate professor at the State University of New York, Albany and author of the paper published April 29 in Nature Climate Change said in an e-mail to Discovery News.”

According to the research, the warming surface temperate increased from 2003 to 2011, which is consistent with an increase in the number of wind turbines in the Texas area used for this study.

Because this warming could impact crop yields of local farmers or have an even larger effect on the increase in global temperatures, the study authors say more research is needed.

“We need to better understand the system with observations and better describe and model the complex processes involved to predict how wind farms may affect future weather and climate,” Zhou said in a statement.

_________________
"New York City is a mismanaged carnival of stupidity that is desperate for revenue and anxious to criminalize behavior once thought benign."
--Alex Baldwin, unknowingly describing his socialist utopia.

interesting.

"I feel that wind farms, if spatially large enough, might have noticeable impacts on local to regional meteorology,”

what appears important about this article, it seems to me, is that understanding these localized effects could actually be used in a positive fashion. for example, keeping crops from freezing, or expanding the range of crops. understanding these effects could also avoid potential negative effects as well, such as locating an ice-cream shop down wind (although the effects seem localized to night time temps).

i didn't open the article but would imagine the effects would fall off significantly with distance (possibly by the square of the distance).

although this is not in any way a global climate change and the polar icecaps won't be melting from wind turbines in texas, but it would have a larger local footprint than a bbq pit and such information can be useful and utilized for proper future planning.

pretty cool stuff. thanks.

_________________
Ambition is a poor excuse for not having sense enough to be lazy. ~Milan Kundera

okay, now i see where this was intended to go. guess i missed the fox news banter about the turbines. my apologies, with a tip of the hat to b.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201204300004

the article seems to point out that the hot air coming from rush and the fox news bloviation machine may have a more profound effect on the environment than the wind turbines.

zhou found the rush/fox coverage misleading and added (my emphasis):
"The researchers, led by Liming Zhou, said it is "[v]ery likely" that "wind turbines do not create a net warming of the air and instead only re-distribute the air's heat near the surface, which is fundamentally different from the large-scale warming effect caused by increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases."


retractions by rush and fox news should be forthcoming

_________________
Ambition is a poor excuse for not having sense enough to be lazy. ~Milan Kundera

^^^ Now that's a funny idea! Don't hold your breath.

_________________
Velo Ergo Endo

Mediamatters is a bull___ organization and I did not quote Fox or anyone else above, other than Discovery News. Take off your kook left-wing lenses for once, please.

_________________
"New York City is a mismanaged carnival of stupidity that is desperate for revenue and anxious to criminalize behavior once thought benign."
--Alex Baldwin, unknowingly describing his socialist utopia.