Pioneering climatologist James Lovelock interview

[PostHypnoticPress]

James Lovelock's "Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning" is now available as an audiobook, read by the talented Simon Vance. Check it out at Post Hypnotic Press.

[hansemerkur32]

at the end the "expert" tells us why nuclear energy is "ideal" for countries like Japan!!!!!!!!!!!!! FxxxK you expert!

[dltanner99]

Novel concerning the Gaia Hypothesis see book video trailer

[formerutuber]

conspiracy theories flourish in the comment section below...

[formerutuber]

conspiracy theorists flourish in the comment section below...

[walter0bz]

global One Child Policy is the least inhumane option available to us

Any other path garantees greater misery in coming decades

[mhirtes12]

This man is a dangerous lunatic! He wants to abolish all democracy and condemn humanity to enslavement to a handful of environmentalist dictators with the power to mass-murder millions of people Auschwitz-style in some horrid mission to "save the planet".

[walter0bz]

@mhirtes12 where does he say that?

Population reduction will bring greater individual freedom - fewer people will be less dependant on central/monopoly controlled big scale industries, more able to survive within the means of local resources

[OrgonVpH7]

This ignorant eugenicist is a criminal liar working for the United Nations. UN is NOT your friend! is friend of the NWO UN plans for this century: Promote gaia as a new age religion Promote nuclear energy Promote world war III Reduce population Apply eugenics Microchip you Create stupid specialists with low level of generalistic knowledge Reset economy with a world currency Solution: Ignore politics, learn about The Venus Project and join the Zeitgeist Movement.

[Ajzenify]

@OrgonVpH7 Much like mhirtes12 below. All your comments here are almost in complete contradiction to Jim's conclusions - To people who have read his work it just sounds like you don't research anything and just spout Venus Project to every argument. Twice i've seen your comments that he's 'an ignorant eugenicist'...What on earth (or 'on Gaia' lol) do you base that on ? The irony of it all is that your attitude, like many of ours, is the key reason to why The Venus Project is flawed.

[jimsim3]

@OrgonVpH7

Gaia is UN eugenic propaganda. you have to be a yank! new age religion.....

where,s the common sense, Gaia hypothesis is a theory base on Homeorhesis. james lovelock is a Chemist on a eugenicist...what he,s saying is the earth, like other planets has a chemical equilibrium. and man kind has imbalanced it. we have to stop polutiong it. or it will bite YOU in the arse.

and he reckons nuclear power is the least poluting. what use is Zeitgeist..if there,s no one home.

[emiledingemans]

Why use nuclear power, when we have a greater source with abundance of energy: the SUN!

[walter0bz]

@emiledingemans ... because the suns energy can't sustain this many humans. we've already reversed into a culdusac by multiplying beyond what the earth can sustain. THIS is why we need population reduction now (global One Child Policy)

[emiledingemans]

@walter0bz I think you underestimate solar power. At todays level of global energy consumption — 18,000 terawatt-hours per year — we would need to cover just 3/1000th of Earths desert regions, about 90,000 square kilometres, to meet demand. Source: Greenbang

[walter0bz]

@emiledingemans

infrastructure.

if you can simply get water somewhere (not even electric grid, roads to carry equipment etc), you can utilize the solar power (to grow food)

seems quite straightforward: so i'm assuming the stat about solar is unimportant compared to the infrastructure issue.

If it was easy, we'd see billionaires building their own private desert utopias already.

[walter0bz]

@emiledingemans -

reality is we're one cell in nature, and its more complex than just how much energy we can harness.. its keeping the right nutriets in the right concentrations at the right temperatures for the whole global organism to survive. (in the face of an ever brightening sun trying to burn it out of existence)

[jalibury]

@emiledingemans cause the sun energy is more expensive and not efficient as a nuclear power.

[emiledingemans]

@jalibury You have a good argument. Your argument makes that if we care about the environment and want to reduce pollutants, it cost us more money. I am happy to afford for it as it's worth this trade-off. If we all want this, we can. We only have to pay a little extra.

[AkADukac]

Nuclear power i think is not save >! >!?

[nobster3]

Oh well - CO2 emssions are fatal ! Watch out for the Climate Change Wars - thank you BigOil. Thanks to all the governments who back them.

[playboyboobyhatch]

Nuclear power advocates--the very reason human-w/99%chimpanzee-dna, will fail, in it's egomania and stupidity.

Watch some more t.v., have some beer,

watch the 'game', and wait for the bees

to die--then we have about 2 years before

we're gone, dunderheads....wake up, get

educated. We are advocating chimpanzee politics. Watch "The Corporation", and you'll see...get

educated. People aren't 'whining' about

nuc energy for NO REASON. They've

educated themselves.

[stfuuuuuuuuu]

nuclear energy will save this planet! we cant depend any more on carbon to produce energy, TOO MUCH CO2 IS WASTED!

[mauvewolf]

Nuclear energy has a minimal footprint??? Tell that to the Ukrainians and victims of Chernobyl, or the horribly genetically mutated civilian victims of depleted uranium.

They made up GW and climate change to kill us??? That explains why the oil companies fought so long and hard to discredit global warming. Oil companies always have humanity's best interest at heart. A million dead Mesopotamians would probably agree with that.

[JonThm]

GW was invented to give academic research money! But now we can do mlecular nuclear fusion - power with no CO2. We just need to lo0ok how teh deep does it!

[JonThm]

The dee psea does safe, clean nuclear FUSION from water: That is the future.

[JonThm]

Nuclear is fatal: They made up GW and climate change to kill us! They are so deadly! Any ecologist who supports them is a paid stooge!

[blackadderthe4]

"Nuclear is fatal", yes if it ever leaks out that is! But so is climate change caused by co2, therefore we need nuclear power to keep up with the expansion of the world population. "Gobal warming is not a fact", from somebody who wants a phd? Well why is the north pole going to be minus its ice cap in the near future! And the permafrost is in danger of melting? Releasing large quntities of methane, which is 20x more reactive than co2!

[JonThm]

'Nuclear fissio' is fatal and toxic. CO2 is taken in by plants to support life on Earth. 'Molecular Nuclear Fusion' as done by the deep, is safe, cheap and clean!

[blackadderthe4]

Why and who would invent GW to kill us?

[Aetopus]

Sorry, I DO NOT agree that nuclear is the way to go. There are already far too many spent fuel rods buried around the U.S. One exposed fuel rod radiates a 26,000 mile radius for centuries. I want the free energy technologies being kept secret from the public by the govt & oil cartels. Forget about coal & ethanol too. They pollute as much and are run by oil. And give us back our electric cars! I do not want to hear any excuses why this can't be done.

[chicagogeorge]

CO2 has always lagged temperature change proven in the ice core record. Co2 has gone up by 33% yet global temps have risen a mere 0.6C in the last 100 years. If co2 was such a driver of climate how come we had global cooling between 1940-1980? Why have temps not increased since 1998? The sun, ocean currents, and water vapor (by far the dominant greenhouse gas) are the dominant factors in global temperature change.

[dharmashooter]

global warming is a scam. The UN is a front for a totalitarian New World Order. This guy is evil. All you nice new age people that think you're good and holy will be the first in the incinerators to depopulate your mother gaia. Pricks.

[SvenTwelve]

There isn't enough uranium and plutonium on the planet to replace the amount of energy currently produced by oil for even five years. Besides, your sister gives great head.

[Fabienopolis]

It's not true. We have enought plutonium for one century. Moreover, Thorium can be used too in the future. otherwise, nuclear fusion is a great hope for the future generations of centrales.

[jrngln]

1)CO2 levels FOLLOW the rise and fall of the temprature not cause it,2)The CO2 released from the burning of fossil fuel is NEW the carbon atoms have been CHANGED because of the burn process giving them new and different forms thus NEW radioactivity levels in the nuclei of the NEW atoms that wher formed.

[8moves]

You can not create NEW atoms. Mass or energy can not be destroyed or created. Basic rule of physics.

[jrngln]

they are new atoms as far as being in a different form, not being collected together in the original makeup of the matter wence they came. As far as, "Mass or energy can not be destroyed or created" is bull shit it just cant be done by MAN!!!

[Tariro1993]

I dont care if u dont belive me, but he is my gandad. I am rebecca lovelock. I am his grandaughter. And im proud of it!

[ftrippin108]

TERREDERHEDAE,

WHAT'S THE POINT OF "SAVING" people with bad solutions that destroy the whole ecosystem on medium term? Ok, save 60 millions people now and within 40year you would have kill several BILLIONS...

Smart solutions exists but it's never simple and you have to think globally and avoid solutions emotionally driven.

[TERREDERHEDAE]

Sorry ftrippin108, vous avez raison, but it's not my opinion nor comment. I merely plagiarized them. How's this one "Most environmental principles such as sustainable development or the precautionary principle have the effect of preserving the economic advantages of the West; a modern imperialism toward the developing world telling them that they will cause too much pollution if they try to catch up with the developed world" ?

[ftrippin108]

I agree too that sus dev can be used as a protectionist tool to protect Western market from developping countries competition. It's true. But i guess you know that now if some 2 or 3 billions of people develop in fast forward in a way as dirt as we did we'll get in real trouble. It's a matter of scale. The ecosystems wont bear it. So, what to do ?

[dfmonagas]

Todo lo que tu digas CAPITAN LOVELOCK!

[letzfaceit]

Al Gore is my sheperd

He is only aware of what he wants

He makes me lie down on park benches outside his mansion

He leads me beside the polluted water of his strip mine

He restores my doubt in brain dead politicians

He leads me in the path of Kyoto for his legacy sake

His lies make children sleepless

Though I walk dark in my house his 4 are lit like Vegas

Surely his lust for power will follow me all the days of my life

And I will see votes held to the light on thanksgiving forever

[TERREDERHEDAE]

How about this : The total weight of termites exceeds the total weight of all humans by a thousand times and termites produce more methane which is a more potent greenhouse gas than human produce carbon dioxide

[jampt1989]

So what? Termites have existed long before man-made climate change has been a problem.

[gismotech]

you are right termites cause more c02 than man. and its the sun that is causeing Global warming not man

and man cannot stop the sun

[jampt1989]

Man is trapping the sun's rays

[jrngln]

LOL LOL ROFLAO WOW ARE YOU IGNORANT AND MISSINFORMED maybe we should all set up mirrors in our yards to untrap the suns rays shine them back up to the sun, LOL sure would beat mowing it ha ha ha LOL

[jrngln]

LOL yeah all of mankind is running around catching the sun's rays LOL you heard it people no more going out side to catch some rays jampt1989 say wer catching to many of them so no more tanning by laying outside have to use the fakenbake LOL

[jampt1989]

I'm not sure about other countries, but in Australia, if we convert to nuclear energy, we will use up water of which is in limited supply (the worst drought since 1901), it would be highly hypocritical because we discourage it in other countries and uranium is in the middle of Australia, which means high CO2 emitting trucks carrying it back and forth to the nuclear station. Not to mention the storage problem for the waste!

[gismotech]

build them on the cost and use seawater and you don't waste fresh water.

[jampt1989]

Plutonium is produced from non-fissile uranium, uranium IS A MINERAL BURIED IN THE GROUND. Therefore is not a renewable energy resource. In answer to your comment below, 90% of Australia's population lives within 150 kms of the coast. I for one do not want the ocean water being used to run a nuclear reactor in my backyard.

[gismotech]

chicken shit and solar power is not good enough do you want a few hundred thousand acares of land covered by solar panels thousand of miles of high voltage lines get real nuclear power is much better

[jampt1989]

Are you Australian? How do you for a fact that these facts are wrong? Did i say only solar power? No. I said Renewables. Renewables include solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, tidal and others. The country is already covered by high voltage lines.

[gismotech]

and a breader reactor takes uranium and makes plutonium that can and is used in other reactors that require no uranium and lasts much longer than a uranium type reactors.

[jampt1989]

that doesn't mean it is a renewable resource. It means it is efficient

[jampt1989]

Nuclear energy is bullshit. We can be powered by renewables if we decrease our energy demands. It's easy. If everyone turned off appliances which are on standby domestically, we can easily do it. Nuclear energy is not a renewable energy resource...therfore we will run out of it.

[gismotech]

you are so full of shit its not even funny

[jampt1989]

Please explain. You may say i am full of shit, but you are not explaining yourself. What have i said that is untrue? This is not my opinion. It has been carefully calculated by my dad's friend Dr Mark Diesendorf of UNSW, he just recently released a book called "Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy." Nuclear energy is absurd and not necessary

[gismotech]

never heard of breader reactors they make more plutonium then they use to generate power, they if fact are a renewable energy resource. and you don't have to have 1000's

of arcer of land covered by solar GReenhouse Solutions is bull shit

[jampt1989]

Solar power is due to match the price of coal powered electricity by 2010. This new, safer and more efficient nuclear energy is at least ten years away. We need to act quicker than this in order to combat climate change.

[gismotech]

the only way to combat climate change is to shut down all coal oil or gas fire power plants ban all cars trucks and any other industry that produces C02 now not in five or ten years and its got to be world wide and its not going to happen

[jampt1989]

Reducing CO2 is combatting climate change. It may not stop it, but it will reduce its harmful effects. Did i say anything about not producing any CO2? I dont want it to happen because life would cease to exist. Solar power will match the price of coal by 2010 because they are getting much more efficient and are being used much more.

[gismotech]

reducing C02 to combat climate change has to be in the range of 90% reduction not a meaningless 10 to 20 percent so anything else is a waste of time and will do nothing to reduce its harmful effects. maybe solar power will match the price of coal in there but not in most countrys as for efficient less than 10percent increase in the last 20 years thats not good.

[jampt1989]

Well that's because there has been such limited funding into solar power over the years, so the increase in efficiency has been good for how much money has gone into it. I said nothing about reducing by 10 to 20 percent, but we will not have to reduce by 90%.

[jampt1989]

Even if we did, it's achievable. Read "Heat" by George Monbiot. Mark Diesendorf and his research team calculated that it would be cheaper to connect huts in India without power to solar cells than connect them with power from the coal-energised grid

[jampt1989]

An analysis of the current CO2 in the atmosphere illustrates that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere's radioactivity has decreased, illustrating that the increase in CO2 is from human activities.

[jrngln]

Number 2 the CO2 released from the burning of the fossil fuel would be NEW, meaning the radioactivity would be high according to your theory, since the burn process changes the atoms into different new atoms, which again shows that human activities has not caused global warming.

[jampt1989]

It's not new, it has been stored in the ground for millions of years and therefore loses radioactivity levels in the nuclei of the atoms. Number two, when the temperature gets hotter, plants photosynthesise faster, meaning the reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere and an increase of oxygen.

[jrngln]

Another FOOL following the global warming FARCE why don't you just pay double your carbon tax and fix it all for us LOL. just wait and see what happens when planet X (Nibiru) gets a little closer, and watch what happens I guess all the earth quakes, volcanic activity, magnetic polar shifts, and the rotation of the earth stopping will be because of our carbon output too huh LOL!!!!

[wcqwerty]

So now that the nibirushock2012 user whos posting all the videos regarding "Planet X" has just admitted its all a fake and he photoshoped the images..... Who now is the fool? Surely not you? quit spreading misinformation you idiot.

[jrngln]

If that is true, it doesn't change the facts of the matter. It just shows that he is not credible, but you go ahead and keep spreading your Idiotic shill misinforming lies. Oh yeah Don't forget to set up mirrors in your yard to untrap the suns rays and shine them back up to the sun,LOL MORON!!!

[gismotech]

they have been saying that since the 1980s I know my uncle owns a solar co that makes them. it has not happened and won't for a long time

[jrngln]

You MORONS co2 has increased because of NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE, when are you IDIOTS gonna get it right, CO2 has increased because the earth has gotten warmer it does not cause the warming, earth warms up CO2 increases Filters sunlight less radiation earth cools CO2 levels decrease.

[jampt1989]

No, wrong. The longer carbon is stored, the less radioactive a carbon atom's nuclei becomes. Since fossil fuels have been stored underground for millions of years, the radioactivity in the nuclei of carbon atoms goes down. By contrast, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere not from fossil fuels his a higher radioactivity level because it has not been stored for millions of years.

[jrngln]

Number one I was talking about the sun's radiation that heats the earth.

[jampt1989]

Number three, why, if the sun's radiation is the source of this increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, is there higher levels of CO2 in the Northern Hemisphere? The answer, becasue Carbon emissions in the Northern Hemisphere are much higher.

[jrngln]

3) The heat levels in the Northern Hemisphere have been taken at ground level in major cities giving FALSE READINGS which have increased because of the building and expansion of cities, & how can you claim CO2 levels are higher in the Northern Hemisphere when the air is constantly moving and keeping everything in the atmosphere balanced globaly?

[sondano]

Isotop studies show otherwise. Moreover, what kind of warming period caused the increase from 280 ppm to 380 ppm? We had the Little Ice Age before the industrial age.

[jrngln]

I will not have a battle of wits with an unarmed twit do your own research MORON and quit following all the other sheeple.

[wcqwerty]

Just like your research in to the (Fraud of) Nibiru? yeah... like ill believe any trash that comes out of your mouth. Your an idiot.

[wcqwerty]

by the way that was directed at jrngln

[sondano]

LOL! That's one of the oldest contrarian bullshit. It has been discredited so many times only a caveman like you could miss it.

[gismotech]

and if you do manage to do that how many hundreds of millions of people are going starve, and I forgot you have to kill all cattle on the planet while you are at it any less and you do nothing to stop climate change

[jampt1989]

As i said before, uranium would have to be transported from the centre of Australia, meaning we would have to continually rely on another fossil fuel, crude oil, to run nuclear reactors.

[gismotech]

there is nothing to worry about the transport of uranium. its already done all the time

[jampt1989]

TERREDERHEDAE thanks for your comic relief.

[TERREDERHEDAE]

Banning DDT was the greatest tragedy of the twentieth century. DDT was the best agent against mosquitoes, despite the ecological hype there was nothing anywhere as good or as safe. Since the ban, which the environment movement pushed hard for, three million people a year have died unnecessarily from malaria, most of them children, and farm workers. In total to date the ban has caused sixty million needless deaths. Ergo; Environmentalists killed more people than Hitler and Stalin put together.

[treemanty]

Do some more reading you idiot. DDT is effective and cheap but that's all that's good about it. It builds up in the higher food chain and eventually results in faulty reproduction. Its toxic effects also influence humans directly. I don't know where you get your malarial death numbers from but that is besides the point, blanketing the mosquito occupied earth with a poison that does not break down and instead is passed throughout the system is not a good answer.

[TERREDERHEDAE]

...and this : Banning CFCs to protect the ozone layer harmed third world people, because, by eliminating cheap refrigerants their food spoiled more often and more of them died of food poisoning.

[ftrippin108]

I'm sorry TERREDERHEDAE but i personnaly think that your comments are very short term orientated.