Alarmists Now Trying To Disown Their High Priest

After clinging to his every word for years, they are now pretending that they never believed him.

Lovelock on Global Warming

James Lovelock is a ‘big idea’ type, most successful with his Gaia extrapolation (1976), although it certainly is not universally accepted by all top scientists. He is not a hard scientist. His specialty is medicine, and chemistry, where he has contributed significantly. He understands very little about geophysicalfluiddynamics.

I read his book in the ‘70s and found it entertaining but very vague. That’s the way one wants to be with prognostic hypotheses, to allow room to incorporate the certain-to-occur deviations in observations. His forte is as a “science popularizer” alltho he lacks the scientific credentials to be as successful as Carl Sagan for instance (both worked on exploration of Mars, mainly to find evidence of life.)

Most knowledgable climate scientists cringed at his prognoses for ‘severe & soon’ Global Warming in his 2nd book . He forgot to be vague. He took a far-out gamble on a model possibility, and the past decade hasn’t met his predictions. His recent confession that he was wrong in predicting severe Global Warming soon is naturally taken (in a classic “hasty generalization”) as “proof” that GW scientists are all wrong. At least one was (so far). As he has said; “I would be a little more cautious — but then that would have spoilt the book.”

Lovelock on Global Warming | Robert A. Brown –

The usual attempt to rewrite history. Three years ago the same author was worshiping at the alter of Gaia.

Listening to Lovelock on NPR:

He did an imaginative theory (the Gaia hypothesis) some 30-years ago. It was basically an extension of the theory of evolution, beyond biology to geology and geophysics. It has stood the test of time. But I have some reservations about his quotes, with my comments in italics:

“I didn’t worry about Global Warming until about 2004.”

I didn’t worry so much until then either. Then effects that were predicted for 2050 were happening now. I agree with him that we waited too long for it not to have a big influence on our lives.

Lovelock on NPR | Robert A. Brown –


About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Alarmists Now Trying To Disown Their High Priest

  1. Edward. says:

    And as most of us already knew, Lovelock like Ehrlich, was a science fiction-esque fantacist who like the scoundrel he was, did deliberately ‘sex up the dossiers’, now he exposes and confounds his own doomsday scenarios and shows them up to be scaremongering nonsense.

    Dumb aficionados – flunkies who worshipped at his feet [Robert A. Brown], now beat the retreat – not surprising – all it highlights is the dearth of their rational judgement, for it was writers such as this who zealously provided the oxygen of publicity for the ‘great man’ in the first place.

    Now, the circus moves on, who should be next?

    It’s, about time that failed law grad’, erstwhile Democratic Presidential hopeful, nobel laureate [if ever there was a politically derived and bonkers award – that surely was it…..] and nutty film maker – warning of anthropomorphic engendered cataclysm – yes it’s time he* came clean and PUBLICALLY recanted.

    Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.

  2. Tourist in Chief says:

    Brown is an idiot. The PI is a failed newspaper. Birds of a feather.

  3. Andy DC says:

    Now that Lovelock has switched sides, he suddenly has no credentials. But that was not a problem when he was parroting the party line.

  4. Owen says:

    If I was Lovelock I wouldn’t be standing on any curbs. Some Climate Liar may literally push him in front of a bus instead of figuratively doing it like Brown just did.

  5. Eric Simpson says:

    It’s common for the bs artists to try to ridicule someone by saying “he’s not a climate scientist.” But that’s upside down. Fact is Climate Scientists are not credible on issues regarding… climate. At least the post 1990 vintage, who had to exhibit agreement with the Chicken Littles in order to get into the club. NO exceptions that I know of.

    Far far from being the great lab-coated experts to be trusted, Climate Scientists are the agenda-driven opposite.

    “We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.” — Stephen Schneider, lead ipcc author, 1989

    “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” –Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

  6. Marian says:

    “Alarmists Now Trying To Disown Their High Priest”

    Same here in NZ. bring up Lovelock to them. It’s off topic or words of a doddery old codger his comments no longer have any weight amongst the warmist alarmists, except maybe his previous doomsaying. 🙂

  7. Lovelock has never fitted neatly into the green idealogical mould. I.e., his strong advocacy of nuclear power…

    I came across Lovelock’s work in the ’80’s when I was still at university. Thought his ideas were entertaining but largely goofy, and haven’t had any reason yet to change my mind.

  8. Eric Simpson says:

    Lovelock is one of a growing but not overwhelming number of defections. I like to think that, who knows, if my forbes comment to that MMann groupie J Reisman was read and heeded — by someone else like Lovelock:

    John R, I see from your site that you are a top non-skeptic, unrivaled in analytical ability. As such, you could just as easily look at the evidence, and play devils advocate. And talk about making a splash — a top guy switching sides — with publicity, $ bestseller, the good life. Why be a front man for a tired gig that people see as the work of big-govt promoting con-artists? You only live once. The iron is hot.. now.

    In any event, the notion of consensus is falling. We need to take pot shots at the contrived consensus wherever we can. While post-1990 climate scientists might march in lockstep, meteorologists, who are more credible on climate (see my comment above), don’t have 97% agreement with agw, or 87%, or 67%, or 51%, or 36%…

    No. Only 24% of meteorologists agree with the AGW theory.

    24%! What kind of consensus is this? See link:

  9. Hugh says:

    I remember when Lovelock was considered on a par with Von Daniken. I almost splurted out my coffee through my nose the first time I seen him in a global warming article being taken seriously. I guess he must be one of that 97% who want to Occupy Gaia

  10. Christopher Korvin says:

    Here is the quote..”If an honest man is wrong,after demonstrating he is wrong he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest.” It seems James Lovelock is an honest man,not like a few others one could name.

Leave a Reply