Anyone catch this interview on Today this morning with Professor James Lovelock – he of the Gaia theory? The learned Professor casually opined that 7 out of 8 billion people will die because of climate change. Nothing beats some AGW hysteria over the breakfast table!

Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to GAIA WORSHIP

  1. matthew rowe says:

    Right so thats everyone on the planet plus a few more, not sure where their from? must passing gaia frendly aliens who only visit Lovelock/Tom cruise/Mr Gore!.


  2. Laban says:

    .. but did you notice his remarks on how scientists might be tempted to tweak the data because their grants and tenure depend on getting the right findings ?


  3. John Anderson says:

    He is reported recently as saying that we may need to “suspend” democracy to deal with climate change.

    In the US there has been a survey of all the TV and radio weather forecasters – evidently many hundreds of them.   Very large numbers of sceptics – encouraging.


  4. Brian Hull says:

    I was staggered to hear Lovelock’s observation about the likely demise of 7,000,000,000, yes 7 bn people out of 8 bn due to catastrophic AGW. There is absolutely no basis for such a claim, and it went without any questioning by Humphreys. Not even a sharp intake of breath. However he did say he could be wrong! Very generous of him having just predicted the biggest disaster of all time.

    Then he stated about scientists bending of data to get the desired result, no questions by Humphreys to get him to validate his point.

    The media just don’t want the truth to come out.


  5. norry says:

    I didn’t hear the interview (listening to Today while driving makes me a danger to other motorists) but I did read the transcript of an interview the Prof gave to the Guardian. Was actually pretty good and I found myself agreeing with a lot of it.

    A quick summary of what I gleaned from it (paraphrasing):
    We can’t expect to throw so much CO2 into the atmosphere with no effects
    These effects could take 1,000 years to manifest themselves
    Computer models aren’t worth tuppence and delude the people relying on them (he uses CFC/ozone as an example of such delusion)
    Anyone who says they can predict what may happen to the temperature by 2100 shouldn’t be listened to with any credence
    We have no idea why long term climate changes occur
    The scientists at CRU have been involved in very unscientific practice
    The IPCC started with good intentions but became perverted by politics by 2007


  6. Anonymous says:

    There is vastly more indisputable evidence for the adverse impact of population growth than global warming on our planet but population growth is the billion people in the room that is ignored two big religious belief systems which are dogmatically opposed to contraception and by the left because population growth is mainly taking place in the non-Western world.


  7. deegee says:

    At least he’s less homicidal than Eric Pianka. He suggests killing off 90% of the world’s population to save it. Save the Earth, Kill People


  8. DP111 says:

    You know this thing about AGW. All governments in the West, the EU the USA, are absolutely committed to it. They are not going to stop using AGW.

    The question I want to ask is this. Are there any uses of AGW, scam and fraud though it is, that may further our own cause or causes?

    I mean, if the AGW train is going to leave anyway, can we not load some of our baggage on it?


  9. James says:

    Can I get this straight – you guys are absolutely, stone-wall, 100 per cent certain that global warming is not caused by man? You’re absolutely positive?


  10. DP111 says:


    There is nothing even in science that can be 100% right.

    So let us start from the beginning

    1. There is no reason to assume that there is continuous global warming. Warming and cooling is the natural order of the planet

    2. The energy required to heat or cool the planet on a planetary scale, and for long periods of time, are so huge, that they are outside the bounds of human resources. They are though within the bounds of the sun, and the many natural cycles that cause the climate to change in a manner that has made this planet a living planet.

    Only when it has been conclusively shown that all other factors have been accounted for, and there is actually sustained global warming beyond natural variability, should any other cause be examined. So far, neither have been shown.

    So before we jump in and tax the Western world to totally destroy its economy, and lead us to lie shivering to death, it behoves those who intend to make us shiver and starve, to show that they really are right.

    So far though, they have shown themselves as dishonest, who wish to hide from the light of open enquiry (NB FIO requests), and as such, NOTHING that they state from now on, can be given even the slightest consideration.


  11. James says:

    “Only when it has been conclusively shown that all other factors have been accounted for, and there is actually sustained global warming beyond natural variability, should any other cause be examined.”

    Why only then?


    • John Anderson says:


      Don’t be naive all your life.

      Here is some reading for you,  wise up a bit about the AGW scam :

      “This blog post at the excellent HotAir site explains why NASA and other sets of “temperature trends” are just as crap – sorry,  suspect – as CRU at East Anglia.

      And the HotAir posting also carries a checklist of the many different ways the AGW case has now been shown to be fraudulent.   That is quite apart from the separate arguments showing why the “remedies” or cure for the faux AGW are dramatically damaging,  the cure being worse than the alleged disease.


  12. DP111 says:


    Your response needs to be a bit more informative. Merely asking “Why” in the manner of a child, will not do.

    What you need to show before embarking on a completely new hypothesis is

    1. Is there Global warming beyond the bounds of natural variability?

    If there is, then

    2. Clear reasons why classical thermodynamics and solar dynamics cannot explain sustained global warming.


    • hippiepooter says:

      DP, James obvioulsy has his pro perspective on AGW, if he can’t be bothered to address a considered reply from you with one of his own, then, like a surly child, he isn’t worth engaging.  But then this is a key reason for my scepticism, the advocates dont like to engage, just sneer, jeer and smear.


  13. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Compare and Contrast:

    This BBC report about The Obamessiah opening the door to offshore drilling:

    Brack Obama eases offshore oil drilling ban

    with this BBC report about President Bush’s attempt to do the same:

    Bush calls for offshore drilling

    When Bush did it, the concerns from the environmentals were the priority.  The only one allowed to say that it was important for the US to end dependence on foreign oil was “the Republicans’ presumptive presidential candidate”, Sen. McCain.  Candidate Obamessiah condemned it as “policial posturing”, and Justin Webb dutifully backed Him up.  The BBC even mentions that He opposed offshore drilling.

    But when President Obamessiah does the exact same thing, suddenly the priority is that He campaigned on ending US dependence on foreign oil.  The BBC tries to play it off as part of His dream of domestic jobs (thus getting in a mention of yet another domestic policy of a foreign government they’re promoting at your expense), and don’t worry, He’s really, really concerned about green jobs even more.  Just forget all about the fact that He was against offshore drilling before the election.

    Now the Beeboids are reporting that The Obamessiah is doing this as part of a trade-off to get Republicans to go along with some climate change bill.  Where’s that Arnold Schwarzenegger quote that it’s a bad idea now, BBC?  Sure, critics may say that He’s just giving them what they wanted, but it will be for the best, because of all those jobs and whatever else the White House talking points memo said today.


    • hippiepooter says:

      A classic example of BBC bias.  What leaps out is in the report on Bush’s proposal:


      “Republican John McCain favours offshore oil drilling, whereas his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, opposes it.”


      And on Obama’s proposal:  


      “Mr Obama has spoken in favour of such a move in the past.”


      Bent journalism at its finest!


    • John Anderson says:

      From all I have read about Obama’s “relaxation” of banning on drilling – it is very limited, and specifically bans drilling in some of the best areas eg parts of Alaska.  He is trying it on,  to then justify his damaging policies on cap-and-trade and the EPA’s ridiculous anti-industry measures.


  14. Peter Toothbrush says:

    This Comment has been removed for breaking the House rules on etiquette.


  15. DP111 says:


    I’m anxious to receive a reasoned  reply with facts from you, showing why AGW is real and cannot be ignored.

    If you are right, then we have to take urgent measures. Most important of all, stabilise the human population, particularly in Britain.

    As AGW is by definition caused by man, then it follows that our increasing population, with its ever increasing energy usage, must be stopped from increasing.  This will also have the positive side effect of less agriculture and less farm animals, both of which release Carbon.


  16. DP111 says:

    I hope James has not come to any harm.

    I still wish him well.