Global Warming is Irreversible.... New game plan?
Having heard an interesting interview with 88 year-old climate science maverick James Lovelock this morning I'm interested if anyone has read his latest book "The Revenge of Gaia". Extracts from an interview on his website
"His latest book predicts that by 2020 extreme weather will be the norm, causing global devastation; that by 2040 much of Europe will be Saharan; and parts of London will be underwater. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report deploys less dramatic language - but its calculations aren't a million miles away from his."
His response to green initiatives such as carbon offsetting, recycling, and the like...
"It's just too late for it," he says. "Perhaps if we'd gone along routes like that in 1967, it might have helped. But we don't have time. All these standard green things, like sustainable development, I think these are just words that mean nothing. I get an awful lot of people coming to me saying you can't say that, because it gives us nothing to do. I say on the contrary, it gives us an immense amount to do. Just not the kinds of things you want to do."
And on renewable energy...
"You're never going to get enough energy from wind to run a society such as ours," he says. "Windmills! Oh no. No way of doing it. You can cover the whole country with the blasted things, millions of them. Waste of time."
His prediction is that in 100 years' time the earth will only be able to sustain 1.5bn people rather than the current 6-ish and that cooler countries will become 'lifeboat nations' inundated by refugees from nations rendered too inhospitable to grow the food needed to support life. Should we be pressing our governments to make ready for this eventuality and accept that we're too late to rectify climate change? Do you think we can still save the world if we reduce carbon emissions? Or do you think the whole thing is exaggerated, that the earth will sort itself out and we need do nothing differently?
And his final suggestion "Enjoy life while you can. Because if you're lucky it's going to be 20 years before it hits the fan."
Well, if he's right that is damn depressing.
Because we can't be 100% sure I think we should continue to pursue sustainable resources and alternative energy sources.
I read a report not too long ago that said the same thing basically. I posted about it here.
If the earth's population is reduced to 1.5 billion - I don't think that's a bad thing.
I've read that 1.5 billion is thought to be the sustainable population that the earth can support. (If everyone has the standard of living that we have in the U.S. & western Europe, then about half a billion people is sustainable). However, it will be unimaginably awful going from 6.5 6.7 billion down to just 1.5 billion. That is a lot of misery and suffering that humans will experience before they perish.
I've pretty much thought that it was too late for awhile. I took a lot of classes on this stuff in college and although carbon dioxide has an unspecified atmospheric lifetime, it is more than just a couple of years (some estimates even put it in the tens of thousands) . . . so basically, we have all of this carbon dioxide that hasn't even reached the ozone layer yet (I don't remember how long it takes to get up there) and it is going to be doing damage for long periods of time. Which is probably why he said it would have worked back in the 60s.
Methane only has an atmospheric lifetime of around 10 years, but is much more harmful.
I think we should be focusing on
1) different energy types (because oil is going to run out VERY soon)
2) different way of producing foods and places to live (because we should be ready for the climate changes.... not just die when they show up).
Time to speed up that plan to inhabit Mars
There are a lot of scientists, engineers and economist who would disagree that there is a problem. So called "climate models" are inadequate to describe the complex system of transport phenomena and reaction kinetics that make up the global environment. 
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/in dex.php?option=com_content&task=view& id=37&Itemid=54
Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change “Global warming” is not a global crisis
We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,
Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;
Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;
Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;
Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering;
Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:
Hereby declare:
That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.
That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.
That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.
That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation, and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.
That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.
Now, therefore, we recommend –
That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth”.
That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.
Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008.
I am in energy law right now studying this topic. There are many conflicting reports on the issue. My general opinion is that global warning is a problem, human activity has contributed directly to that problem, there are real achievable ways to reduce emissions soon and we should take those measures now rather than wait to see who is right about the scale of effects we might see down the road. The IPCC report is a good source for scientific consensus on the issue, if such a thing exists.
Yes, that's the nonsense that came out of the "climate" conference sponsored by Exxon through various astroturf front groups. In this case, the Heartland Institute.
In other words, you've been had. They lied to you to make you believe there's nothing to worry about so they can go about doing business as usual.
Well that's so bleak!
I definately wouldn't go the 'why bother' route. I think we still need to try and do the best that we can do. If it's too late then it's too late and we'll know then.. but we can't give up.
well that's disturbing...
i'll be honest, i'm not all that educated on global warming, though i think it's ridiculous to believe that human activity isn't having an impact on the earth. i also think it's frightening how many of the companies profiting from the destruction of the earth are able to put out information as if it is fact, and people believe it.
guess i'm going to just continue to enjoy life as much as i can, keep trying to be environmentally responsible and hope for the best...2020 isn't very far away!
Did you know that .... there is so much methane produced from factory farming that if everyone switched to a vegetarian diet it would be like eliminating the emmissions from every car, truck, boat, plane and train on the planet?
Save the earth! Eat less meat! 
Colder countries, huh?
Go go gadget Canada!
Exactly.... buy land in the less habited parts of Canada and other hilly countries at a similar latitude, get planning permission and your descendants will cash in.
Original Post by hatamoto:
Colder countries, huh?
Go go gadget Canada!
Ha! Was thinking the same thing. :)
Original Post by gi-jane:
...88 year-old climate science maverick James Lovelock...
Did this guy offer a new game plan? please tell me he said "we should just think 'what would a maverick do?' and then do that".
Original Post by trixster:
I can't win I think I'll quit.
I don't think that's the message. I think what the man's saying is that if you know an iceberg's definitely going to stove through the hull of your ship at some time in the future, it makes sense to have a enough lifeboats and jackets to save the passengers ... not fuss about rearranging the deckchairs or trying to tackle icebergs with a hairdryer.
I'm all for green initiatives... less waste, cleaner environments, responsible use of resources.... but if they don't prove to be enough to alter this particular course of events (which seems to be the prediction) maybe we need a 'Plan B'.
Original Post by floggingsully:
Did this guy offer a new game plan? please tell me he said "we should just think 'what would a maverick do?' and then do that".
Oh yes... I haven't read the book but his message is that we should be thinking more about 'saving lives' rather than 'saving the planet'. Because the planet will adapt and carry on and survive as it has done for millions of years, it's the human beings on board that won't do so well! He's recommending using more technology to ensure survival rather than less... big exponent of nuclear power, for example. And he's suggesting that the 'lifeboat' nations (Canada, UK, New Zealand etc.) should strengthen their infrastructure in preparation for the refugees from other countries.
Lifeboat nations will have to protect themselves from those countries who would take by force what they need to survive.
This kind of event isn't just going to create the bedraggled refugee but foster wars without treaty and unleash epic pandemics.
Mankind is the architect of its own extinction.
Original Post by floggingsully:Did this guy offer a new game plan? please tell me he said "we should just think 'what would a maverick do?' and then do that".
A maverick would take Goose and do an unauthorized fly-by of the tower. 
I'm so stuck in the 80s.
The side effects of allergy medications keep some people from using them. Natural remedies can be a great alternative, but some are more effective than others.
