Evironmentalist Icon Says He Overstated Climate Change (from IBD)

Not many years ago, a celebrated scientist predicted a global warming disaster awaited humanity. Today, that same scientist admits his warning was too "alarmist." It's time Al Gore turned his limousine around, too.

James Lovelock, father of the "Gaia" theory that the entire earth is a single living system, was one of the many voices that's predicted environmental calamity will result from carbon dioxide emissions.

He claimed in 2006 that "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."

But he has told MSNBC that he overstated the case and now acknowledges that "we don't know what the climate is doing."
"We thought we knew 20 years ago," he said. "That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened."

The 92-year-old Lovelock notes that "the climate is doing its usual tricks" and concedes "there's nothing much really happening yet" even though "we were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now."

Lovelock hasn't fully changed course yet. MSNBC says he still believes climate change is occurring, though not as rapidly as he once thought.

"The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time," he said. Yet the temperature "has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that."

As we have said before, linking human activity to climate and weather is a foolish proposition.

Researchers can theorize that an increase in human-caused CO2 emissions will heat the planet, but they haven't been able to prove it. There are too many forces outside of man that influence temperature, precipitation, clouds, humidity and wind.

Rather than continuing to contend that man is driving temperatures to dangerous levels, it seems that is the explanation that Lovelock is moving toward, though apparently quite slowly.

But give the independent scientist credit for admitting his mistake as well as pointing out that a university or government researcher might not be so inclined to admit error due to fear he would lose funding for bucking the alarmist narrative. His honesty in the midst of an issue so shrouded in deceit is refreshing.

 (From Investor's Business Daily)