'Humans too stupid to stop climate change'

[Still Waters]

Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change from affecting how we live on the Earth, according to James Lovelock, the maverick environmentalist.

Prof Lovelock, the man behind the Gaia theory which says that the planet behaves like a single organism, claimed humans were “not clever enough” to handle the problems associated with global warming.

In an interview, the globally respected environmental thinker and independent scientist applauded “good” climate sceptics and gave warning that global warming would one day lead to severe conflict.

"I don't think we're yet evolved to the point where we're clever enough to handle as complex a situation as climate change," he said.

"The inertia of humans is so huge that you can't really do anything meaningful.”

Read more...

[Admiral Danger]

stu-pid???

i not be stoo peed

morron...

Edited March 30, 2010 by Dr Alien

[lp21why]

As much as I respect Lovelock, I do think he is very wrong this time.

It isn't stupidity that is stopping us from acting. Greedy, apathetic and in denial, most definately, but stupidity I think not.

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

We are stupid if we don’t agree with him?

Don’t you just love how the fascist left-wing always resort to name-calling against anyone who disagree with them?

[lp21why]

We are stupid if we don’t agree with him?

Don’t you just love how the fascist left-wing always resort to name-calling against anyone who disagree with them?

That's not what Lovelock said at all...... He says that Climate Change is such a complex issue, that humans as a species cannot comprehend it. And as such cannot create an effective defence against it. There was no name calling........

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

That's not what Lovelock said at all...... He says that Climate Change is such a complex issue, that humans as a species cannot comprehend it. And as such cannot create an effective defence against it. There was no name calling........

If we were all agreeing with him on the issue then I doubt we would be hearing him call us all stupid. His name-calling is obviously an attempt to demean those who disagree.

[Admiral Danger]

That's not what Lovelock said at all...... He says that Climate Change is such a complex issue, that humans as a species cannot comprehend it. And as such cannot create an effective defence against it. There was no name calling........

well stupid is a bit of a harsh word to use

a better phrase to use would be "Humans lack the knowledge to prevent climate change"

but we're not supposed to stop climate change because climate changes all the time.

[lp21why]

well stupid is a bit of a harsh word to use

a better phrase to use would be "Humans lack the knowledge to prevent climate change"

but we're not supposed to stop climate change because climate changes all the time.

He doesn't call anyone stupid. He says 'we are not yet evolved enough', not the same thing at all.

And yes climate does change, although 'all the time' is an exaggeration. This current phase of change does not fit in with any climatic oscillation or cycle; the only thing that can explain it, is human activity.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Has he got shares in carbon credits?

Only he can grasp climate change

[lp21why]

I take it no one actually read the article? He applauds 'good' climate sceptics, and he does not claim he is the only one who can comprehend climate change. Quite the opposite, he claims no one can understand it.

Watching his interview on the bbc he also dismisses the idea of carbon credits, and a lot of 'green' solutions.

I do wish people would at least read something before attacking it.

[Guest]

Stupid is a good word for describing our lack of ability to comprehend the information, assimilate it, and act upon it in a constructive way. The people who are supposed to represent us acknowledge the problem but are unable to formulate meaningful responses. This is the very definition of stupid. We are clever and have all the solutions we need to address the problems but not the wisdom to implement them.

Most of the problem is one of complexity, we believe that we have created our civilization and that we control it, but really it is a self organizing mega system which we are blindly riding to oblivion. Humans have not developed the wisdom needed to control our clever ideas. Everyone is blindly waiting for the "magic bullet" which will save us from ourselves, if we can just hold on for long enough. There are plenty of solutions here and now, but no magic bullets.

Br Cornelius

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

I am sure if all of the greenies would simply live up to their own beliefs and start living the most simplistic of lives (no children, no energy use, become vegans, simply meditate all day on mother earth, etc….) the problem of man-made global warming would be solved. It is not that man-kind is too stupid to solve the AGW problem, it is really instead that the greenies are hypocrites and refuse to live up to their beliefs.

[lp21why]

I am sure if all of the greenies would simply live up to their own beliefs and start living the most simplistic of lives (no children, no energy use, become vegans, simply meditate all day on mother earth, etc….) the problem of man-made global warming would be solved. It is not that man-kind is too stupid to solve the AGW problem, it is really instead that the greenies are hypocrites and refuse to live up to their beliefs.

Is this view of 'greenies' based actual people, or is it just your perception of them?

I would be one of these 'greenies' and I in no way belief we should just up sticks and live like we did milennia ago. You will find very few people that actually believe we should live like that; most of us believe in engineering solutions to alleviate the problem, including James Lovelock. The driving force behind the environmentalist movement changing it's opinion on nuclear energy; which is why so many people support it now.

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

Is this view of 'greenies' based actual people, or is it just your perception of them?

I would be one of these 'greenies' and I in no way belief we should just up sticks and live like we did milennia ago. You will find very few people that actually believe we should live like that; most of us believe in engineering solutions to alleviate the problem, including James Lovelock. The driving force behind the environmentalist movement changing it's opinion on nuclear energy; which is why so many people support it now.

If you and other greenies belief that man-kind is killing the earth by changing its climate then you have the power to fix the problem yourself by eliminating your carbon footprint. Do not expect those of us who do not share in your belief to go along with any stupid ideas to change the climate though like cap and trade, or banning light bulbs, or policing people’s energy use, etc….

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

The driving force behind the environmentalist movement changing it's opinion on nuclear energy; which is why so many people support it now.

Ironic though that we would already have more nuclear energy if it wasn't for the greenies.

[lp21why]

This is a global problem, therefore it needs a global response. If a river floods, you don't put defences on one side of the river. It needs a concerted effort to solve the problem and at the moment there just isn't the political will.

And I agree, policing and lecturing isn't the way forward. The policies you mentioned are just politicians appeasing the general public and not solving the problem. And just because you don't believe there is a problem, doesn't mean there isn't one.

[Guest]

Almost all our carbon footprint is imposed on us by systemic structures which we have to live in. How many of us have access to zero carbon housing, how many of us could give up commuting with the current public transport. How many of us have enough capital to invest in meaningful amounts of alternative energy.

These are systemic issues and can only be address by governments and societies.

Those who are aware do as much as we can on our own, but short of giving up work - living on the dole and never going out - there are sever limits on what we can do as individuals. I am a greeney who does as much as I can but I am still only 1/3 of the way towards doing enough - the rest is beyond my control.

Br Cornelius

[Elevate Free]

Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change from affecting how we live on the Earth

It's not that we are too stupid to prevent climate change; it's that climate change has nothing to do with humans and thus should not/can not be changed. It existed before humans were around and will continue after we've gone extinct (assuming that at that point there is still a climate to change).

[Wickian]

That's guy's not the only one who knows we don't understand nearly enough about the climate to predict it.

[Guest]

That's guy's not the only one who knows we don't understand nearly enough about the climate to predict it.

The man is a scientist admitting that there are aspects of the climate which we do not yet understanding. The conclusions drawn in the article you reference are entirely different from what he was saying. Quote mining rears its ugly head again.

Steven Chu is a firm believer in and outspoken advocate of action against man made Global Warming. He has no doubts about Global Warming - simply some of the details - which is fair to say about all climate scientists.

Br Cornelius

Edited March 30, 2010 by Guest

[lp21why]

That's guy's not the only one who knows we don't understand nearly enough about the climate to predict it.

That article doesn't tell us the whole truth. We know that in a negative NAO phase there are lower temperatures, which hide any warming that has taken place. Plus the lower temperatures may be due to sulphur dioxide and other industrial gases that are now subject to acts regulating their use.

I do agree that we don't know everything there is to know abut climate change (if we did there would be no need for climate models and such) and this is exploited by those sceptical of AGW.

[Michelle]

I do agree that we don't know everything there is to know abut climate change (if we did there would be no need for climate models and such) and this is exploited by those sceptical of AGW.

And you don't think it's telling that the biggest proponents of AGW don't lead by example, if they really believed it?

[War Eagle]

Either i've misinterpreted the article badly, or he's having trouble distinguishing the two(?)

Is it *global warming/climate change; man-made?

Is it *climate change/global warming; natural to earth life cycle?

In which case how could we, or should that be, why would we want to intervene.

What exactly is he implying?

Think even Wiki's hav'n problems separating the two.

*note how i spun them back-to-front for that added confusion.

[Coffey]

Get me if I'm wrong but isn't climate change a natural thing and actually has nothing to do with humans? I thought it was part of the Earths natural course.

[Guest]

Get me if I'm wrong but isn't climate change a natural thing and actually has nothing to do with humans? I thought it was part of the Earths natural course.

Climate change is a natural thing, and at the current stage of our Civilisation any climate change would be a very very bad thing since we are at the peak of our efficiency curve and so there is little room for "gradual adjustment".

However the current changes in climate are not part of that natural cycle and they fall well outside of what should be happening naturally. Those natural cycles are still there and are responsible for the little downward blips we have experienced, but the trend is relentlessly and dramatically upwards. So nature is still cycling but we are stamping our great big carbon footprint right over the top of those natural cycles. Beyond certain limits nothing is predictable and the system enters dramatic state changes in very short periods. We look to be creating enough of a perturbation to the natural cycles that those sudden and dramatic state changes will kick in.

Remember what I said to start with - any climate change is catastrophic for us, and we are causing dramatic changes on top of those natural cycles. Draw your own conclusions about the outcome of that one.

Br Cornelius