James Lovelock....

[bigcadaver]

Hey guys..i'm pretty new to the discussion board and i'm posting here for the first time. I was pretty sold on the whole "global warming caused by man" argument until recently. Now I have my doubts. A man I studied quite a lot was James Lovelock, the independent climatologist who came up with the Gaia theory. I followed his views because he seemed to be independently motivated...not employed by government agancies (that I know of). His view is simple...than the Earth was in a warming trend but that man made greenhouse gases have accelerated the process and is now irreversible and that 9/10 of the world's population will die by the end of the century due to flooding, mass relocation and war and disease as a result.

Sounds conveniently like a New World Order scare tactic, but Lovelock just doesn't seem that way to me.

Anyone have any thoughts on his views?

[hagbard_celine]

I read his book a long time ago and it didn't quite ring true. Can't really remember it well though.:o

[paolo]

Now he's basically a nonogenarian scum promoting anthropogenic global warming theory and a catastrophic future other than putting ourselves in the hands of the nuclear industry
As can be seen from his comments re Chernobyl, he regards humankind as a parasite without whom Gaia could thrive
From today -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/aug/09/interview-james-lovelock

[bigcadaver]

Now he's basically a nonogenarian scum promoting anthropogenic global warming theory and a catastrophic future other than putting ourselves in the hands of the nuclear industry, As can be seen from his comments re Chernobyl, [/url]

Your statement is accurate if man made global warming is false...but bang on from Lovelock's point of view if it is not false.

he regards humankind as a parasite without whom Gaia could thrive [/url]

From a biological standpoint...if we are doing the planet harm through unsustainable development and overpopulation then this is also correct.

I've never gotten from any my research about him that he thinks Gaia would be better off without humans. His view is more that we have been irresponsible regarding the care of Gaia and that THIS civilization cannot be sustained at this rate but a more responsible one can and should.

I guess what i'm looking for is a reason to believe he has alterior motives. He's independently funded himself for most of his career (unless someone can point ou otherwise). He just seems like a very knowledgeable/credible guy with nothing to gain by perpetuating this "lie".

Not sure what to think about this guy.

[cruise4]

man made global warming is false

It is. But you are already mixing up arguments so need to make up your mind what question you want answered. Then maybe someone will point out the many hundred easily findable links and resources that may help 'your quest'.

[nihil]

I like Lovelock's Theory, please do not follow posterious interpretations of his Gaia Theory . His original point of view was plain and simple: Earth is a macroscopic living being and plants, animals (included man) are part of the whole. Earth is living, so his teachings are: respect the earth, as mother, home and source of every needs.

[bigcadaver]

His original point of view was plain and simple: Earth is a macroscopic living being and plants, animals (included man) are part of the whole. Earth is living, so his teachings are: respect the earth, as mother, home and source of every needs.

Yes exactly! His point of view is not, nor has it ever been, that human beings are "parasites" and using the word "scum" to describe him as one poster did earlier seems a bit harsh without looking into his studies and beliefs further.

I was pretty unsure regarding the whole global warming thing up until a few years ago. I never trusted politicians or most scientists because of course they can have hidden agendas that we know little about.

When I started reading about Lovelock however it seemed to hit home with me that man made global warming (climate change whatever) was a reality. Here is a guy who has been at the forefront of the environmentalist movement since the 70s. Very inovative thinker, and independently funded. He seemed to me to have not alterior motives and nothing to gain by lying.

Now...of course I may be completely wrong about him which is why I posted this thread to find out from anyone out there who may have substantial and significant reason to doubt him.

It seems to me there are 3 possibilities:

1. Lovelock is an idiot. He has no alterior motives or anything, he's just to uninformed and stupid to formulate his own opinion so he's going along with the view in the world right now taking a slightly more alarmist position to get more publicity.

Unlikely but possible

2. Lovelock knows that man made global warming is a fraud but he is embeded in the NWO framework and is just using his position of fame (to a degree) and credibility to help perpetuate the lie in order to advance the global agenda.

Definitely possible, looking for evidence of this from this forum.

3. Lovelock is truly independent and is making observations and drawing conclusions based on what he perceives as factual information and he truly believes that human civilization is responsible for kick starting global warming to an irreversible level.

Again, definitely possible

Thoughts?

[nihil]

3. Here . Posterious interpretations stink 100% Multinational Manipulation .

Even if you consider that humankind is some kind of eco-berserker, a true progress
could make humanity return in tune with the earth, but do we really think any
government, Corporation will really deal this progress ?

For the Good of mankind ? Nope .

[marc_o]

Eugenisist and transhumanist scientist never seem much motivated by the allure of power or wealth. Its the assimilation of thier ideas (which are based on distain for humanity) by the global rulers that seems to get them off.

[kde_]

Isn't Gaia an old pagan term for the earth mother goddess or whatever?

[hagbard_celine]

Isn't Gaia an old pagan term for the earth mother goddess or whatever?


Yes, it's what the Ancient Greeks called the Earth's consciousness. Modern Western Materialistic Skeptical Science laughs at them and calls them "primitive"!:rolleyes::(

[kde_]

Thank you hagbard