E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Jacques Demarthon/ AFP/Getty Images
British environmental guru James Lovelock, seen on March 17, 2009 in Paris, admits he was "alarmist" about climate change in the past.
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.”
NYT: Most tie extreme weather to global warming, poll finds
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.
'Perfect recipe' for wildfires as season starts early
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.
US sees warmest March, and first quarter, on record
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.
States where green jobs are going gangbusters
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.”
NOAA reports its data in monthly U.S. and global climate reports and annual State of the Climate reports.
Its annual climate summary for 2011 said that the combined land and ocean surface temperature for the world was 0.92 degrees above the 20th century average of 57.0 degrees, making it the 35th consecutive year since 1976 that the yearly global temperature was above average.
“All 11 years of the 21st century so far (2001-2011) rank among the 13 warmest in the 132-year period of record. Only one year during the 20th century, 1998, was warmer than 2011,” it said.
In the interview, Lovelock said he would not take back a word of his seminal work “Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth,” published in 1979.
But of “Revenge of Gaia,” published in 2006, he said he had gone too far in describing what the warming Earth would see over the next century.
“I would be a little more cautious -- but then that would have spoilt the book,” he quipped.
More world news from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Iran says it is building a copy of downed US spy drone
- Anglican official: Front-runner for top church job victim of 'naked racism'
- Poachers attack rhinos featured in Rock Center report
- Attack foiled? Afghanistan arrests five with 11 tons of explosives
- Russian ships arriving in China for naval war game
- American in Cuban prison: 'Get me the hell out of here'
Follow us on Twitter: @msnbc_world
Leave a Comment:
Well thats the first step, but now they need to admit they cant prove that humans rather than nature are the primary cause of climate change. Only then will this scandal end.
If middle of the road rational thinking was the only thing that could destroy the world we would all be safe for ever.
How inappropriate of him. Climate change is getting worse, and accelerating.
You funny!
At least he had the human decency to state he was wrong. There's a LONG LONG list of others we need to hear from. Secondly when he starts making other predictions to correct his previous ones I think of the religious guy who keeps predicting the date the earth will end then runs back to his basement when it doesn't happen to recalculate the "corrected" date. More likely? You have no idea.
It appears Lovelock drank the Kool Aid.
Read this if you can read. At least look at the charts and pictures.
http://scotese.com/climate.htm
How Rich!! When the Scientists were proclaiming Anthropogenic Global Warming, you Progressives cried " how can you argue with the Scientists ". Now that they are declaring they have grossly overreacted, you claim " They have drank the kool-aid ".
Proves without a doubt that the term " Progressive logic " is one of the Worlds ultimate oxymorons!
Insult the "progressives" all you like, but I can read.
"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."
So... let's gas up our V12 SUV's and paint the town red because everything's going to be just fine.
Here comes the back tracking. Al Gore became a environmentalist because it was profitable. I find less and less touting the Chicken Little the "Sky is falling" scenario. In Earths history we know their have been cold and warm periods. Long before Man ever affected or could have affected it. But the Global warming people like to ignore all that older history because it distorts their belief.
Now we know the truth. Gore, Obama, the Greenies, the news media are all truth terrorists. The CO2 theory is a massive failure, a lie, junk science. The people should be able to obtain economic relief from the truth terrorist. Tort Law should be available to sue these incompetents for everything they have.
No, it isn't a massive failure. The oceans and atmosphere are still warming at a rate of about 0.3 deg F per decade, consistent with climate models when other effects such as El Nino are included in the models.
Now, if only Obama and his minions will admit what jackasses they are, also.
You must admit it first
Science is a wondereful TOOL for making predictions. However, the future can never be predicted with absolute certainty. That is why the IPCC reports state probability in terms of percentage and recognize the uncertainty in any prediction. I read the IPCC's and found that their predictions were never "alarmist" but predicted a slow moving crisis unfolding over many decades. People will come together and act when confronting an immediate crisis. The problem with ACC is that it's full impact will not hit until well after the damage is done, at which point we will have a full blown crisis - perhaps? (95% possiblility).
Well, the republicans are always talking about not burdening their kids and grand-kids with an enormous debt for them to pay in the future, the same should be applied to climate change whether it's now happening slower than previously thought or not. They can't have both things both ways.
BRILLIANT! We'll have the same Truth Terrorists (credit Xant for that term) come up with the new time line and payment schedule. They make good movies and sound believable so yes I feel better with this idea.
Who in the article said anything about Republicans?
Who the hell is A Gore?
He is either a major con artist or the best salesman since the " Pet Rock "
Ian Johnston, you either have an agenda or you are merely stupid.
The title for your 'work' was either willfully directed to those who wsih to denounce climate change research, or you simply stumbled through abject nit-wittery.
To begin with, you misrepresented Lovelock's statements and I can only assume that your editor was either asleep or in the restroom when you decided to post, and that is just about the only way one can read your
title and then read the following;
".. Lovelock said he would not take back a word of his seminal work "Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth," published in 1979.
But of "Revenge of Gaia," published in 2006, he said he had gone too far in describing what the warming Earth would see over the next century."
No, Sir, he was not "alarmist" about global warming in general terms. Lovelock does not state that he became alarmist by your own attempt at reporting. Lovelock states that he considers his *second* book "alarmist", and yet he stands behind his initial work - and THAT will be missed (ignored) by the many for years to come. In effect, your misrepresentation has added a new and entirely unnecessary hitch in the debate, and one that will have cost - at least at the level of the ballot box and possibly within the halls of legislation where, if errors are made, we hope they are so on the side of safety and not ignorance.
Further, since you understand nothing about the science, you don't have the intellectual savvy to understand that data described by NOAA and others do not and cannot describe the biological significance of current world trends - they can only report on the physical science (i.e. *past* temperature change). The models they attempt to describe climate change with do not account for acidification of ocean surface water due to increasing carbon dioxide concentrations - causing coral reefs to die off ... thereby removing ocean nurseries from the food chain which also includes massive algae CO2 scavenging.
The physical science models do not well account for continuing deforestation throughout every tropical zone that further diminishes the opportunity for CO2 sequestration in organic materials - which becomes the backbone for soil amendment and nutrient recycling, thus even slower CO2 sequestration. Though everyone in the *many* fields of study exploring the issue (paleobotany, climatology, astrophysics, geochemistry, petrology, marine biology, cultural anthropology, geology, oceanography, population genetics, behavioral ecology, biological anthropology, microbiology, marine biology, fisheries science... Notice how there are more biologists involved than physical scientists? And don't forget the historians and archivists from every nation that provide documentation of climatic processes from as far back as Mesopotamia) are well aware of serious greenhouse gases such as methane stored beneath permafrost and beneath ocean floors. Unfortunately, those gases are sublimating (frozen material thawing straight into gas without a liquid transition) at an increasing rate and there is no scholar on the planet that has a firm account for how fast other than to say it is ramping up in scale.
If your intent to was further confuse an already challenging issue and conflate arguments that will necessarily hinder the reasoned approach to good science informing better policy - you have done it.
Congratulations.
Great job. Thanks for your clarification. Now, if you could only get through to about 9 billion other people.
Good post TopicNumb
This guy sounds like he was out to sell books, rather than offer a realistic opinion of the situation. Meaning, he took what was happening and played on everyone fears, by threatening us with the worst case scenario. That said, climate change is fact. That doesnt change, even though this guy exaggerated the extent of the problem. How bad it will get and how quickly remains to be seen. No one can answer that, thats the biggest problem. And worry. One thing is for sure, we can count on it progressing as long as we do nothing to cut back on our carbon emissions. It is catching up to us as we experience extended droughts, and ever increasing severity in our weather. Its time to embrace green tech wherever we can. Better safe then sorry I say.
But by being "safe" as you call it we will all go bankrupt.
Green tech saves you money. I already save a fortune by using it. I could care less if oil companies go bankrupt, good riddance. I however wont be going bankrupt any time soon.
I would avoid using statements like "we all".. I think you mean "you". Im going to go out on a limb and guess you work for an oil company, or own stock in one. Or perhaps you work for a power utility? Thats would explain your worry about "going bankrupt". Because "going green" has done nothing but save me money. Lots of it.
Not much for economics are you Freedom! The Worlds economies are either based on or strongly dependent upon the Oil Industry! You , I and a vast majority of the world will be long ago bankrupt even before the oil industry!
Care to specify which green tech is saving money? And I mean net savings in the long term on an apples-to-apples comparison of "non-green" alternatives. Because most of what I read says green tech costs compared to comparable alternatives. Green cars, for example. Take a hybrid car over the non-hybrid version-it takes, on average, 6 years/72000 miles of driving before the cost of the gas you've saved is greater than the markup you paid for the hybrid. Energy-saving CFLs compared to old incandescents--takes 4 years for mark-up to be paid in energy savings. Using solar panels to generate your power? 15 years for the upfront costs to be paid back from the lower energy bills.
If green tech was really saving people money, why do you have to pass tax subsidies to encourage people to use? Why do we have to ban non-green alternatives?
Going green is not an absolute. It doesnt mean all use of hydrocarbons will stop. It means reducing and replacing it with an alternative where possible. No one is going to go bankrupt by doing that. Except for maybe someone in the oil business. And doing so will likely save you money. Especially if you are able to generate your own energy. Lots of businesses are going green, and its not making anyone bankrupt.
I generate most of my own power, using hydo generation and some solar. Saves me approx 1500$ a year, based on thats what I used to spend when I had to buy all of it. When I can get a car that doesnt use gas, I will save on that too. Especially if I can charge it with my free power.
Freedom-And here is where you've exposed just how ignorant of economics many in the green movement are. How much did you pay for your power generating green tech? a quick google search finds the average solar installation runs between $18000 and $25000, depending on size, amount of sunshine in your area, etc. Personal hydro power systems are so rare that I doubt it's even worthwhile trying to establish a baseline quote from googling to see what you spent on it, but I doubt it would be less than $10-15K, but probably more. So between your two power generating systems, you are in for somewhere between $28K and $40K, but likely more. On the low end, at your $1500/year in savings mark, it will take you 18 years before your electricity is "free." And of course, that assumes you have no maintance costs for either system-replacing solar panels broken in storms, replacing rusted turbine parts, etc. Oh, and if you didn't happen to have have $28K in cash laying around, you financed your purchase of these systems, and the interest payments will increase the time till you've actually saved money.
But as long as you're pitching this green tech as a broadly available solution for all to consider, what percentage of the population do think actually live in places where they can build their own hydro power? Most homes don't have significant streams in the back yard that they can easily dam and divert to a turbine for power generation. And even if they did, let's not pretend that damming and diverting water flow isn't without it's own environmental costs to consider--wetlands habitats, in-stream fisheries, etc.
As far as your electric car idea, let's look at the numbers on the Nissan Leaf, the cheapest battery-only car on the market starting at $27K. In terms seating, storage, finish quality, handling, comfort, etc, the Leaf is in the same category as small hatchbacks like the Nissan Versa, Kia Rio or the Ford Focus, which can be had for $12-$15K. Using just the $12K price difference (easier math), at today's $4/gallon prices you can can 3000 gallons of gas. Comparable vehicles to leaf get combined score of around 33MPG, so that 3000 gallons of gas will get you nearly 99000 miles. If you hold to average of 12K miles driven a year, that's 8.25 years before you've spent as much on gas for your cheaper gas vehicle as you would have to buy your electric Leaf.
No one is saving money by going green. The math just isn't there. If people saved money, there wouldn't be tax breaks to get people to do it. There wouldn't be government-backed loans to Solyndra.
Here is the scientific evidence. Scroll to the chart.
http://scotese.com/climate.htm
This makes the Green Movement look like the Greenhorn Movement.
Actually Lovelock doesn't go far enough. The environmental climate change crisis is even worse than we know.
You don't have to worry about global warming we will run out of clean drinking water long before the climate kills us. In my lifetime we have went from almost 6 billion people on the planet to past 7 billion. China is approaching 2 billion and what they fail to mention in the media is that India is going to surpass China in population. Over 4 billion humans in just 2 countries on the planet and they are already having trouble feeding them all. Let alone the economic impact of exponential populations, the more poeple the more money you have to print causing inflation. Or you could just let 1,200 people have all the money and let the rest look for bugs under logs for food. Oh wait that's what were doing now. My point is our uncontrolled breeding is a greater threat and the root cause of these global problems we face. Fix the climate and our future still looks bleak.
I believe if we can start bring down population grow that will have a material and positive impact.
Too late Al has already gored the public for 100 million and all the liberal progressive Dumbocrat union teachers have planted another seed in our childerns head.
Not too late albruno! They tried to do the same thing in the 1970s with the Ice Age Panic, we saw them for charlatans then we see them for charlatans now!
The s didn't htf, so now he's gotta excuse himself for his hysterical attempt to profit from the fear of others. But he's right about one thing: "billions of people will die before the end of the century". Since very few people live a hundred years, most people who were alive in 2000 will be dead by 2100. The high temperatures in the last few weeks were, of course, "unrelated to the unusually high solar activity", huh? LOL. We are still emerging from the last ice age, folks. Temperatures will continue to bob up and down, with the general trend being to increase over time. Every day the local weather reports on TV and radio show today's high temperature, and compare it to the record high for that day of the year. Often, the record high for the day will be reported to be in 1877, 1930, etc. The "global warming (climate change, which covers the times when record low temperatures are reported)" hubbub is just a bunch of con artists trying to get research grants, big bucks for speeches, and make money off their "special products" guaranteed to slow down the "warming trend".
I am shocked, just got up off the floor, that MSNBC would have even considered running this article. Funny how the same people that cited this mans opinion years back as the "Gospel" will know say he doesn't know what he is talking about...or he just wants to sell books.
It's about Dam Time that some of these Nut Cases admit the harm done to society by their fear mongering. I think many of them had lied all along to profit from the Sheep.
The changes are slowly taking place, like it just snowed on the East coast last night. Lovelock, had to admit he was wrong just to save face. Al Gore should do the same and give back the Nobel prize he got for just talking about global warming. What were those people thinking when they gave it to him?. Green Peace, thinks Lovelock is a Kook.
This seems to be a preemptive strike to keeping the masses as true believers. What is completely amazing is that even when scientists admit to manipulating things like data and predictions to exaggerate a problem they fully and freely admit they do not understand yet, not one of the believers questions the validity of any of the manipulated research. Could it be the daily if not hourly brainwashing? What if you put "all your eggs in one basket" and find out what is causing noticeable climate issues is really the sun changing or the poles reversing or any number of the many theories that are no longer deemed legitimate research because global warming's cause has been proclaimed incontrovertible? Will "I made a mistake" justify trillions of dollars spent and massive destruction of other natural wonders for nothing but a green investors portfolio? I used to believe blind faith was of the conservative religious type not liberated minds with an education. The world is changing and it isn't the temperature that is changing.
The planet's climate is always changing. Has been since the planet formed.
Whether or not civilization contributes much to the equation is still debatable.
He lied.He's 92 now, wants to make peace with his maker so he's coming clean.
The point is, the whole global warming, climate change issue is sensationalized. The earth has always gone through cyclical climate change. The earth has been gradually warming for hundreds of years in its present cycle, industrialization has nothing to do with it. But it's great fodder for the far left to grab control of civilizations. The free thinking, intelligent person needs to use common sense and ignore the big government proponents from the left. Better yet, vote them of office, they only want to tell you how to run your life.