PDA

View Full Version : Interesting interview with James Lovelock



Cullion
18th August 09, 08:08 AM
In this BBC interview he talks about climate change. He certainly doesn't support all my views. He says he thinks mankind triggered a shift into a new climate state, but there's now absolutely nothing we can do about it and carbon footprint schemes etc.. are a waste of time that largely exist just to make people money. He uses the phrase 'green propoganda' at least once and rails against public money being wasted on feelgood schemes, lawyers, consultants etc..

Oh and then he predicts that somehow there will be a massive cull of the human population this century.

Grumpy old bastard with a mind like a steel trap still. Better grasp of facts and figures than the early-middle aged BBC journalist he's talking to.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00m543d/HARDtalk_James_Lovelock/

For those who can't view it, his conclusions, roughly speaking are :-

i) Worrying about carbon footprints and renewable energy are a waste of time. There's absolutely nothing we can do. Interglacial climates are rare. We're about to enter a 'hot' stage which historically have been more stable. Stop wasting money on these schemes, they're mostly cynically designed to filter public money into private pockets.

ii) Lots of people are going to die and there isn't much we can do.

iii) The best we can do is prepare the UK to be as comfortably habitable as possible with lots of flooding. We ought to expect lots of climate refugees, and we need to grit our teeth and make up our minds in advance how many we're willing to take because there won't be room for all of them.

iv) Environmentalists need to STFU about nuclear power.

Dark Helmet
18th August 09, 04:39 PM
Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK only, but all BBC iPlayer Radio programmes are available to you. Why?

If you are in the UK and see this message please read this advice.

Go to Radio channels home page

Cullion
18th August 09, 04:46 PM
This may help http://www.anonymous-proxies.org/2009/02/using-iplayer-abroad-viewing-bbc-via.html

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
18th August 09, 04:49 PM
When he says a bunch of niggas is goin die, is he talking about third world shitholes exclusively? I just don't see that happening to the developed world unless it gets so hot it cooks all our corn surplus.

Cullion
18th August 09, 04:55 PM
He says he thinks most of the worlds human population will die in the 21st century and we'll be left with a population of around a billion.

He thinks the UK will be relatively safe for some reason (although there will be extremely severe flooding), and there will therefore be waves of desperate refugees trying to get into the country.

He speaks in quasi-religious terms about Gaia a bit, e.g. describing the more picturesque and quiet parts of the English countryside as 'the face of Gaia', and he you sometimes get the impression that he isn't completely clear on how these things will happen, it's just like he's got a quasi-religious intuition that Gaia will wipe out this many people to restore some kind of optimum balance as he sees it.

HappyOldGuy
18th August 09, 04:55 PM
When he says a bunch of niggas is goin die, is he talking about third world shitholes exclusively? I just don't see that happening to the developed world unless it gets so hot it cooks all our corn surplus.

I'm not sure I would invest in south florida real estate, but yeah, mostly it's going to hit places that most of the west has already "written off."

bob
18th August 09, 05:00 PM
So, yes, literally a bunch of niggas is going to die.

Kein Haar
18th August 09, 05:01 PM
Phew!

Edit: I meant that in response to HOG, not sceptic. Someone is going to ask me what the difference is. The difference is, I just...plain...don't...like...that...word.

Cullion
18th August 09, 05:02 PM
HoG, are you summarsing Lovelock's views, or are you channeling some other climate science ?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
18th August 09, 05:02 PM
the art movement this spawns is going to rock

Robot Jesus
18th August 09, 05:02 PM
almost everyone living in a coastal region would be displaced.

if Gore is to be trusted about the out come if not the cause, most of the populated area of china will be flooded.

Cullion
18th August 09, 05:05 PM
I take it that was a troll attempt?

HappyOldGuy
18th August 09, 05:14 PM
HoG, are you summarsing Lovelock's views, or are you channeling some other climate science ?

I am saying what it will be. Not what your latest grumpyoldman crush thinks it's gonna be.

Cullion
18th August 09, 05:29 PM
Produce your sources. You shall not ruffle me. This is day 9 of my non-smoking, paleo-diet future and I get stronger by the day.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
18th August 09, 05:49 PM
I'm going to go spark a bowl, smoke a cigarette, and get a hamburger and fries
brb

Harpy
18th August 09, 05:56 PM
Why has there been such a backlash against environmentalists and environmental schemes in the last few years?

Do the general population believe after all this time that the environmentalists should have solved all the Earth's problems and that they, the people (and governments and industres) have nothing to do with it and should just sit on their big fat arses and wait for a quick-fix?

Cullion
18th August 09, 06:05 PM
Well, there isn't a huge backlash on this forum.

In my case it's not that I think they haven't solved enough problems, it's that I think many environmental groups exaggerate or blantantly make shit up for financial reasons and/or to try and achieve political significance.

HappyOldGuy
18th August 09, 06:07 PM
Produce your sources. You shall not ruffle me. This is day 9 of my non-smoking, paleo-diet future and I get stronger by the day.

No.

You've used up all your chips on this topic.

Cullion
18th August 09, 06:10 PM
You know I can refute your claims by pointing and laughing at the previous predictions made by the same people, don't you ?

Ajamil
18th August 09, 11:36 PM
Green schemes and propaganda aside, are you against trying to make our energy use more efficient? Unless we go purely solar (I'm pretty sure the sun will be able to burn as long as humans are around), there's a limited amount of energy on this planet, and the less waste in using it, the better off we'll be. Don't you think so?

Harpy
18th August 09, 11:54 PM
Arjuna, unfortunately the people who want life to go on in an unchanging manner will say that you have an agenda (and that the environment isn't your priority), you're trying to make money out of your 'scheme' and gain a foothold into politics. I tire of these views. I wish I was on a rubber raft harpooning Japanese whale-hunters.

Ajamil
19th August 09, 01:19 AM
The biggest agenda I'd say I have when it comes to the environment is making humans extinction-proof, but that really won't happen till we can find a way to colonize other planets.

Cullion
19th August 09, 03:07 AM
Green schemes and propaganda aside, are you against trying to make our energy use more efficient?

No, not at all. I just think that there's already sufficient incentive to do that. I don't think we need carbon taxes because I'm not especially prejudiced against fossil fuels.


Unless we go purely solar (I'm pretty sure the sun will be able to burn as long as humans are around), there's a limited amount of energy on this planet, and the less waste in using it, the better off we'll be. Don't you think so?

I'm all in favour of nuclear power and renewable sources that are economically practical.

Lily: Grow up.

downinit
19th August 09, 09:21 AM
So, if I understand the corollaries of this fellow's theory correctly -- and I may not, because I didn't actually watch the video (too cheap to pay for a proxy service) -- he believes arctic ocean temperatures are going to reach 23 degrees Celsius within this century? *Cue Little Mermaid theme with visions of myself snorkelling through a school of angelfish in the Labrador Sea, blithely letting my guard down only to be immediately Steve Irwinned by a stingray.*

Ajamil
19th August 09, 09:24 AM
Do you think there are any plans out there right now that would help increase our energy efficiency?

Do you think there are any plans out there that will increase our chances to adapt to a changing environment with minimal harm?

Cullion
19th August 09, 09:28 AM
I don't recall him saying anything that extreme. In the video he said he thinks global average temperature will be 5-6 degrees higher because that's what the historical record shows global 'hot periods' tend to stabilise at.

His argument is based on the idea that we're living in a rare interglacial period, with ice ages 6-7 degrees cooler and hot periods 5-6 degrees warmer being the global norm, historically.

downinit
19th August 09, 09:37 AM
I don't recall him saying anything that extreme. In the video he said he thinks global average temperature will be 5-6 degrees higher because that's what the historical record shows global 'hot periods' tend to stabilise at.

His argument is based on the idea that we're living in a rare interglacial period, with ice ages 6-7 degrees cooler and hot periods 5-6 degrees warmer being the global norm, historically.


He expects the change to be similar to the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum when atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 450 ppm. At that point the Arctic Ocean was 23 °C and had crocodiles in it, with the rest of the world mostly scrub and desert.

Cullion
19th August 09, 09:52 AM
Do you think there are any plans out there right now that would help increase our energy efficiency?

You have to define energy efficiency.

Do you mean cheaper production per joule? Yes, fission power plants are great and one day nuclear fusion will be extraordinary. Power for industrial production, transport and home utlities will all be orders of magnitude cheaper than now.

I'm not sure what other definitions of energy efficiency are meaningful if you accept the premise that worrying about your carbon footprint is completely pointless.



Do you think there are any plans out there that will increase our chances to adapt to a changing environment with minimal harm?

I think the climate change predictions thus far have been so bad that we don't know what we're supposed to try and adapt to. HoG and others will certainly dispute that. Maybe we shouldn't do that one again in this thread.

If you broadly assumed that HOG was right, but you knew you couldn't predict exactly how local weather patterns would change it would make sense to prepare for large-scale flooding of coastal cities and flooding of croplands, especially by moving critical national infrastructure and institutions away from such places as much as possible and thinking very hard about where the food was coming from instead.

Cullion
19th August 09, 09:58 AM
we r so fucked if he's right

I guess so. If he's right.

downinit
19th August 09, 10:30 AM
You have to define energy efficiency.

Do you mean cheaper production per joule? Yes, fission power plants are great and one day nuclear fusion will be extraordinary. Power for industrial production, transport and home utlities will all be orders of magnitude cheaper than now.

I'm not sure what other definitions of energy efficiency are meaningful if you accept the premise that worrying about your carbon footprint is completely pointless.

Perhaps a better measure of energy efficiency is total joules available from a particular source. By this measure, something like solar would have near-infinite efficiency. Fission, on the other hand, is dependent on a steady supply of uranium, which, from what I've heard, could be depleted within a century or so.

I think he's right to suggest stepping up our use of nuclear fission in the near-term, but if we're unable to harness nuclear fusion before we wear out our uranium supply (assuming fusion is even realizable), we'll eventually just run into another energy crisis down the road. Certainly, to me, it makes sense to continue investing in wind and solar technologies to supplement our energy supply, and potentially to act as our primary source of power in the event that we exhaust our non-renewable sources.

Ajamil
19th August 09, 11:40 AM
Both of those definitions are probably better than what I was thinking. I meant more in terms of machine efficiency - getting closer and closer to having the energy put into work go 100% to that work. Smokeless fires, no heat loss, and what have you.

Cullion
19th August 09, 02:32 PM
Perhaps a better measure of energy efficiency is total joules available from a particular source.

That's not a measure of efficiency.



By this measure, something like solar would have near-infinite efficiency.

No, it's bounded by the surface area available to collect sunlight on and the efficiency of the collection technology available.




Fission, on the other hand, is dependent on a steady supply of uranium, which, from what I've heard, could be depleted within a century or so.

The situation is more optimistic than that for non-fusion nuclear technologies, have a look here:-

http://www.world-nuclear.org/



I think he's right to suggest stepping up our use of nuclear fission in the near-term, but if we're unable to harness nuclear fusion before we wear out our uranium supply (assuming fusion is even realizable), we'll eventually just run into another energy crisis down the road.

Well, we don't have an energy crisis if we keep using fossil fuels. America has sufficient coal reserves to match it's current energy usage for hundreds of years, as do many other countries.



Certainly, to me, it makes sense to continue investing in wind and solar technologies to supplement our energy supply, and potentially to act as our primary source of power in the event that we exhaust our non-renewable sources.

Well better use of solar makes sense but I agree with Lovelock about windpower being questionable, and it's certainly a scam in Europe at the moment. I agree with him that wavepower is worth looking at.

Cullion
19th August 09, 02:46 PM
Both of those definitions are probably better than what I was thinking. I meant more in terms of machine efficiency - getting closer and closer to having the energy put into work go 100% to that work. Smokeless fires, no heat loss, and what have you.

It will mostly come incrementally from things like the shift from cathode ray tubes to LCDs etc.. as people totally uninterested in environmental issues already have a simple financial incentive to do this.

Ajamil
19th August 09, 02:58 PM
Well, we don't have an energy crisis if we keep using fossil fuels. America has sufficient coal reserves to match it's current energy usage for hundreds of years, as do many other countries.

Hundreds of years? Source? Also you say current energy usage, isn't that deceptive? Unless you feel our energy usage won't increase in the future.

Cullion
19th August 09, 03:10 PM
Source was a book called 'after oil' or something like that written from an anthropogenic warming alarmist's perspective. I see now that the figure cited in there of 250-300 years is disputed. The scientists in disagreement say it can't be confirmed that there's more than 100 years worth of coal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-coal.1.6248650.html

downinit
19th August 09, 03:28 PM
That's not a measure of efficiency.

You're right, it's a measure of availability, but it's important insofar as efficiency becomes a moot point when you have infinite availability of an energy source.


No, it's bounded by the surface area available to collect sunlight on and the efficiency of the collection technology available.

Well, yes, we can only generate so much at any given time, but it's infinite to the extent that it can't be depleted.


The situation is more optimistic than that for non-fusion nuclear technologies, have a look here:-

http://www.world-nuclear.org/

I wasn't sure where the relevant information was located on that site, but Wikipedia says the following:


Current economic uranium resources will last for over 100 years at 2006 consumption rates, while it is expected there is twice that amount awaiting discovery. With reprocessing and recycling, the reserves are good for thousands of years.

That sounds pretty impressive, though you have to consider the fact that nuclear fission currently only accounts for a minority of power generation in most countries; forecasts would become less generous if we began to draw on it as our primary energy source. Still, the assertion that it could be reprocessed for "thousands of years" suggests that supplies are more generous than I'd thought.

EuropIan
19th August 09, 03:41 PM
Cullion, do you think that the strongest current mediums of power (ie. coal, oil, gas) have it in their interest to keep their market share?

Cullion
19th August 09, 03:55 PM
Yes, but I don't believe they have sufficient power to politically enforce this, at least in Europe. They haven't stopped the EU handing out money to subsidise windmill construction. I wish they had.

The main reason oil-based fuels are so prevalent in our infrastructure is because they have really high energy density by volume yet are stable enough to be stored and transported relatively easily, thus making them perfect for vehicles.

If you're suggesting that they somehow influenced the environmental movement to have nuclear power development crippled by public outcry, I don't think there's any evidence for that.

The other thing you have to remember is that evil 'big oil' is a business like any other. If solar power and hydrogen cells looks like they're going to be the big thing, then they're as likely to buy into it as engage in some expensive machiavellian luddite campaign to keep 'free clean energy' down. I'd say the odds favoured the former, because it doesn't involve any negative publicity or political problems. That's purely from a self-interested perspective.

EuropIan
19th August 09, 04:24 PM
I agree for the most part..However..

You do know that the oil industry frequently buys patents they perceive as threats to their marketshare and sit on them. Oh sure, they do further expand on them, but the research they do is mostly for the good pr.

Pumping oil out of the ground and selling it for ever increasing costs is a profitable business.

Doing further research and replacing it with a new market is not.

Especially if the fuel is easier to collect by the layman.

Virus
19th August 09, 04:46 PM
I'd like to see coal plants phased out and nuclear phased in.

EuropIan
19th August 09, 04:48 PM
I agree.. 'Nukelar' energy gets a bad rap.. But we've gotten much better at it..

I still think a non-inhabited buffer zoone around plants is a good idea..Just in case.

Cullion
19th August 09, 05:15 PM
You do know that the oil industry frequently buys patents they perceive as threats to their marketshare and sit on them. Oh sure, they do further expand on them, but the research they do is mostly for the good pr.

I believe this to be an unfounded conspiracy theory, please disprove me. You're always willing to listen to my conspiracy theories courteously.



Pumping oil out of the ground and selling it for ever increasing costs is a profitable business.

Doing further research and replacing it with a new market is not.

Especially if the fuel is easier to collect by the layman.

Oil infrastructure is expensive though. There's a lot of risky big-scale engineering involved in pumping sticky black fluid from deep under the sea or an ice cap. If they were really sitting on cold fusion patents or whatever, they're throwing away good business.

Harpy
19th August 09, 08:26 PM
i) Worrying about carbon footprints and renewable energy are a waste of time. There's absolutely nothing we can do. Interglacial climates are rare. We're about to enter a 'hot' stage which historically have been more stable. Stop wasting money on these schemes, they're mostly cynically designed to filter public money into private pockets.
Wasn't able to watch the doco but did he suggest alternatives? At the grassroots level, people are moreso aware of the environment and I'd rather the general population were engaged and believed they could make a difference rather than just writing off environmental schemes. However, I have read a couple of Lovelock's earlier works and do respect where he is coming from. However the 'public money into private pockets' bit seems to suggest that he is out of touch in certain areas.



ii) Lots of people are going to die and there isn't much we can do.

Does he theorise how this might happen?



iii) The best we can do is prepare the UK to be as comfortably habitable as possible with lots of flooding. We ought to expect lots of climate refugees, and we need to grit our teeth and make up our minds in advance how many we're willing to take because there won't be room for all of them.

The only thing that makes sense to me.



iv) Environmentalists need to STFU about nuclear power.

I agree for the most part..


Well, there isn't a huge backlash on this forum.

In my case it's not that I think they haven't solved enough problems, it's that I think many environmental groups exaggerate or blantantly make shit up for financial reasons and/or to try and achieve political significance.
And no other groups do this, right?

Ajamil
19th August 09, 11:12 PM
Pumping oil out of the ground and selling it for ever increasing costs is a profitable business.

Doing further research and replacing it with a new market is not.

Unless the huge and newly expanding markets of China and India start looking into solar, wind, thermal, etc. more. And especially as public opinion is swayed by "faulty" science (quoted simply because there is contention) then those markets will drastically increase.

To not get in at the ground floor and use your already established place in the energy business to catapult your company to the forefront seems like bad business too.

resolve
20th August 09, 12:46 AM
My thoughts are kind of different than alot of people's on this.

A few years back (3 or so?) I was talking with my meteorology profs (used to be into weather science alot) about this. They ended up making us do a paper >_<. Anyways, when I was gathering their views for sources they almost unanimously were derisive towards the propaganda machine being labeled as science when there was hardly any empirical evidence put forward. I had a prof lambast on the "hockey stick graph" that was proved false for some time.

I didn't know what to think about it for a long time. I grew up as one of those indoctrinated "greenhouse effect, factories are evil, GOOOOO Planet!" kids.

What I see happening is that there is some climate change. However I feel that it is mostly natural. Carbon Dioxide is a rather poor insulator compared to things like water vapor and has an actually pretty small effect. What I think is happening is we are just nudging the natural course of things along a bit faster than we'd like. Africa wasn't always mostly desert...

Sure, things will get bad in certain areas for a time. But that's just how this earth does. I don't see how we are going to impact anything with alot of the crap that's being suggested.

What I do find great about the hullaballooo is that funds are being channeled into things like energy where I've dreamed of them going for a long time.

It's like... do I want to raise a stink when it actually is doing some good?

Cullion
20th August 09, 01:13 AM
Wasn't able to watch the doco but did he suggest alternatives? At the grassroots level, people are moreso aware of the environment and I'd rather the general population were engaged and believed they could make a difference rather than just writing off environmental schemes. However, I have read a couple of Lovelock's earlier works and do respect where he is coming from.

No, he thinks you're all completely wasting your time. He thinks humanity has triggered a shift out of a delicate, unstably interglacial era into a hot era, which would've happened anyway given time, and there's absolutely nothing that can be done to reverse or ameliorate this process.



However the 'public money into private pockets' bit seems to suggest that he is out of touch in certain areas.

It's a massive problem. Government grants are being dished out to people building windfarms in Europe on the back of this hysteria. Stupid environmental projects lining the pockets of 'consultants' are rife in local government. We just had a thread not long ago where people were approving of the government paying people to buy a new car because they thought it would be good for carbon footprints.



Does he theorise how this might happen?

He doesn't go into much detail. Presumably from massive flooding of coastal areas and massive disruption of global food production, mainly. The kind of 'hot era' he's discussing had crocodiles swimming in warm water in the arctic during summer, the last time we had one.



And no other groups do this, right?

Of course they do, that's never a reason to excuse it.

Ajamil
20th August 09, 01:48 AM
No, he thinks you're all completely wasting your time. He thinks humanity has triggered a shift out of a delicate, unstably interglacial era into a hot era, which would've happened anyway given time, and there's absolutely nothing that can be done to reverse or ameliorate this process.
Kind of a "stop building sand castles - tsunami's coming" thing, then?

Cullion
20th August 09, 01:56 AM
That's the gist of what he says in the interview. 'Stop whittering about carbon footprints, it won't make any difference, start thinking about flood defences and what you're going to eat'

Ajamil
20th August 09, 02:37 AM
Then I agree. Best way to start getting into renewable energy is to use up all the oil and coal.

Cullion
20th August 09, 03:02 AM
I'm very optimistic about the progress of technology and scientific knowledge.
I think we'll have fusion power plants and really good fuel cells before then.

People are right to be cynical about the time scales with fusion because it always seems to be 'another 50 years', but they have been making real progress with it. The 'another 50 years' thing is just their way of saying 'look, this is research, we don't know yet, fuck off and we'll tell you when it's ready'.

resolve
20th August 09, 12:23 PM
Then I agree. Best way to start getting into renewable energy is to use up all the oil and coal.

The only problem I've found with that is where will we get our plastics from then?

The medical industry is almost entirely dependant on plastic these days :-/

Cullion
20th August 09, 12:27 PM
Hydrocarbons can be synthesized.

Shawarma
20th August 09, 12:51 PM
I agree.. 'Nukelar' energy gets a bad rap.. But we've gotten much better at it..

I still think a non-inhabited buffer zoone around plants is a good idea..Just in case.
I most certainly agree.

Demolish Malmų.

AAAhmed46
22nd August 09, 06:09 PM
In this BBC interview he talks about climate change. He certainly doesn't support all my views. He says he thinks mankind triggered a shift into a new climate state, but there's now absolutely nothing we can do about it and carbon footprint schemes etc.. are a waste of time that largely exist just to make people money. He uses the phrase 'green propoganda' at least once and rails against public money being wasted on feelgood schemes, lawyers, consultants etc..

Oh and then he predicts that somehow there will be a massive cull of the human population this century.

Grumpy old bastard with a mind like a steel trap still. Better grasp of facts and figures than the early-middle aged BBC journalist he's talking to.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00m543d/HARDtalk_James_Lovelock/

For those who can't view it, his conclusions, roughly speaking are :-

i) Worrying about carbon footprints and renewable energy are a waste of time. There's absolutely nothing we can do. Interglacial climates are rare. We're about to enter a 'hot' stage which historically have been more stable. Stop wasting money on these schemes, they're mostly cynically designed to filter public money into private pockets.

ii) Lots of people are going to die and there isn't much we can do.

iii) The best we can do is prepare the UK to be as comfortably habitable as possible with lots of flooding. We ought to expect lots of climate refugees, and we need to grit our teeth and make up our minds in advance how many we're willing to take because there won't be room for all of them.

iv) Environmentalists need to STFU about nuclear power.

Totally going to post this on another forum.

socratic
22nd August 09, 08:31 PM
Arjuna, unfortunately the people who want life to go on in an unchanging manner will say that you have an agenda (and that the environment isn't your priority), you're trying to make money out of your 'scheme' and gain a foothold into politics. I tire of these views. I wish I was on a rubber raft harpooning Japanese whale-hunters.

Because piracy is a perfectly rational response to the whaling industry. More likely they'd be harpooning you.

"The white whale! WHITE WHALE! Man the harpoons!"