Slashdot Mirror
'Gaia' Scientist Admits Mispredicting Rate of Climate Change
DesScorp writes "James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing '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.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"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.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace."
6 years into Al Gore's campaign of mass persuation not only do people grow weary, science itself has suffered major damage from a quasi religious, cargo cult sect, outwardly pretending to do science.
Using the same criteria as the climate "scientists" of the IPCC, seeing someone throw a die 4 times in a row is enough to shout out that the die is "very likely" loaded - no matter what the actual numbers were. Say, they all were even-numbered - gotcha. The chance for that less than 10%. thus, in climate-speak the die is 'very likely' fake. Say, they all were odd-numbered - gotcha. All 3 or smaller - gotcha. All 4 or larger - gotcha. All fibrionacci numbers - gotcha. None - gotcha. etc.
In the end, they simply only mention those data-mining results that happen to coincide with their preconceived notions of what climate change is supposed to look like. Climate-speak is giving them all the libeterties they need for this to still be "very likely" (90%) or even "virtually certain" (99%).
A recent result in particle physics was rejected outright, even though the associated statistical likelihood of the result was:
99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
Despite all that confidence, neutrinos are still not faster than light, as any phycisist with a bit of basic understanding of fundamental physics could (and did) tell you. In the end, statistics means nothing. All that matters is the physics and the physics of climate change is shoddy.