Election 2016: Biden fuels ’16 talk with New Hampshire visit
Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change from radically impacting on our lives over the coming decades. This is the stark conclusion of James Lovelock, the globally respected environmental thinker and independent scientist who developed the Gaia theory.
It follows a tumultuous few months in which public opinion on efforts to tackle climate change has been undermined by events such as the climate scientists’ emails leaked from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit.
“I don’t think we’re yet evolved to the point where we’re clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change,” said Lovelock in his first in-depth interview since the theft of the UEA emails last November. “The inertia of humans is so huge that you can’t really do anything meaningful.”
One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is “modern democracy”, he added. “Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”
He’s not alone. NYT columnist and fellow alarmist Tom Friedman suggested last year that “one-party autocracy” was more preferable than “one-party democracy” … because Democrats were the only party “playing ball” on the issue of so-called “man-made” global warming. There have been many others in the agw community who, if they haven’t called for an outright suspension of democracy, have engaged in some pretty despicable name-calling against anyone who dares to disagree with them: Nazis, treasonous, conspiracy theorists, on par with Holocaust deniers, etc …
Dan Karipides at Wizbang responds to Lovelock:
Let that sink in for a second and consider what he is advocating. In his opinion people aren’t evolved enough to handle the difficult problems. They need to be led. They need to be tended by a ruling class, by a ruling class of people like him.
We are, apparently, to put our trust in the people who faked data to drive worldwide opinion. Who have been caught in at least a dozen similar improprieties, using non-scientific data and sources as the basis for scientific conclusions. Who have admitted that exaggeration is an acceptable means of controlling public opinion and actions. Who have even said that some climate change related diplomacy has little to do with the environment and much to do with giving a competitive advantage to developing countries.
Fortunately, if recent polling is any indication, more and more people are beginning to catch on that all the alarmism and scare tactics are exaggerated. Let’s hope it’s a trend that continues. There’s nothing wrong with “being green” in an effort to conserve and to be a little nicer to the planet. But there’s something very wrong when you’re so “green” that you’re willing to continuously suppress data that doesn’t fit in with your preconceived notions about the cause of global warming in an effort to get people to join up with your “cause,” an effort that will cost them a heck of a lot more than it will cost you.