And, lo, Lovelock repenteth and there was rejoicing

This, you will not be surprised to know, is old news - well, you won't be surprised if you are a regular reader of this blog!  A couple of months ago, the High Priest of Greenery, James Lovelock, he of the Gaia principle, took a long hard look at all the tons of verbiage produced by his fellow Greens and consigned the lot of it to landfill!  Here is part of what he said as quoted by The Toronto Sun:

“so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”

Oh dear!  Only two days ago I reported that the new, sacred mantra of the 'Wee HAFs' was to be - wait for it  - "sustainable development"!  And now one of their High Prophets has come along and smashed it to bits.  But there was worse to come because whilst he still believed that there was anthropological global warming (well who doesn't?), he had come to realise that the results of it were nowhere near as apocalyptic as the 'Wee HAFs' believed.  He says:

[...] it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.

He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error [my emphasis], as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.

As sly, old George Smiley knew, there's nothing like turning an insider as a means of getting at the 'real deal'!  Lovelock spills some more beans:

Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” [My emphasis]

You may be wondering about my new collective title - 'Wee HAFs' - instead of my usual 'HAFs' (Hot Air Fanatics).  This is a nod in the direction of the 'Wee Frees', a somewhat obscure and tiny Presbyterian sect resident, I'm glad to say, in Scotland.  No doubt my e-pal, 'Glasgie' Jimmy, will elucidate further.  It is said of them that when St. Peter shows you round heaven you will see a stockade with very high walls and St. Peter will ask you to tiptoe and whisper as you pass because the 'Wee Frees' are inside and they think they are the only people in heaven!  This link to a religious sect is deliberate because there has always been a reek of religiosity around the Green movement.  Lovelock - and he should know - puts it this way:

It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”

And the other characteristic of all religious movements is their refusal to countenance, or at least, to only begrudgingly acknowledge, the advance of science.  It is an irony of such delicious magnitude that only I, and the dedicated connoisseurs of irony who regularly read this blog, will truly appreciate, that the fanatical belief of the 'Warmers' that their 'science' is settled is totally unscientific!  (Oh God, I'm clenching my little fists and smacking my lips at that one!)  Again, Lovelock, a scientist himself, spells it out:

Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.” 

So, the next time you see a 'Wee HAF' be nice to him or her.  They're no better or worse than those British Buddhist eccentrics to be seen from time to time in our High Streets, chanting and tinkling their little cymbals.

 

Comments

[dearieme]

I'm sure I can trust you to distinguish carefully between the Wee Frees and the Wee Wee Frees (don't you think, by the way, that that latter appellation has a certain derisive air to it?).

[David Duff]

Yes, I noticed on Wiki that there are two expressions but "brevity is the soul of wit" and all that sort of thing, and when have you ever read me being overly prolix - on second thoughts, don't answer that!

[A K Haart]

"he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances."

I know it sounds grudging, but as a scientist I don't think it should have taken him this long. The science was obviously dodgy from the off and it's so simple. Global temperature trends depend on your starting point. That's a reason to be suspicious at the very least.

As for sustainable development, I think that's been the intention for a while. It's the Hydra growing more heads.

Still - it's great fun lopping them off!

[dearieme]

Oi, Duffers, I've got a freshly minted joke for you.

I say, I say, I say, what do you call Angela Merkel's latest rejection of EU proposals?

I don't know, what do you call Angela Merkel's latest rejection of EU proposals?

The Hun certainty principle.

Boom tish!

[David Duff]

Yes, AK, but then again, no-one said he was a very good scientist! Even so, top marks for eventually realising his mistake and having the guts to admit it.

" The Hun certainty principle"!!! It's the way you tell 'em, DM.

[klem]

"I know it sounds grudging, but as a scientist I don't think it should have taken him this long. "

I agree, I think he stood by climate alarmism a bit longer than he should have. But when you look back over the years, you can see glimmers of climate doubt in his remarks, it was only a matter of time before he had no choice but to admit that the climate is not behaving as scientists predicted. In other words, he needed more emperical evidence. It makes me wonder why so many other scientists have not changed their opinion. The longer nothing happens to the climate, the more compelling the emperical evidence.

How long must scientists observe normal climate variability before they will finally admit that they have been observing normal climate variability?

[David Duff]

Klem, welcome to D&N, and I think I suggest part of the answer to your question in my post which is the 'religiosity' which permeates their preconceptions.

[klem]

Religiosity is a good way to describe it. Its not a full blown religion, they don't have churches or a martyr yet. But they have pretty much everything else.

[David Duff]

Indeed, and as they reach for my wallet in order to support their wretched sect I could easily supply some martyrs!