I hugely respect James so read the interview with great interest, but I don’t totally agree with everything. So first the things I completely agree with but please see http://tranquilityhouses.org.uk/wordpress/2010/05/james-lovelock-white-paper-on-his-guardian-interview/for my full response:

  • I published some time ago that the computer models don’t and cannot work, much as I respect the academics involved.  Our climate is too complicated and if we don’t fully understand it we cannot model it.  I therefore do not accept the IPCC reports which change at each publication.
  • I also argue strongly that our democracy doesn’t work, is ineffective and actually undemocratic – see more on hyperlink
  • Scientists don’t argue back against the sceptics because they are gentlefolk intent only on advancing knowledge.  They are not political nor are they trying to advance any particular point of view.
  • Carbon Trading is a travesty.  It simply shuffles money into unknown places and makes the traders rich.  The carbon price is no reflection whatever of the actual cost of carbon, being determined by a political decision.  It is not the ‘environmental cost’.

And what gives me difficulty:

  • I have not read the UAE emails either, but the independent review found no fault with the scientists or their reports, and it would be statistically astonishing if there was no flaw in such a phenomenal volume of scientific data.  The sceptics only have to find a single flaw to make headlines.
  • I also have no problem with a sincere sceptical analysis, but enormous difficulty with the unscientifically argued sceptical responses.  If they did their own science to show or prove there is no climate change I would welcome it – but they don’t.  They pick holes in proper scientific data to show that for a tiny period of time something was wrong. Claims based on very short term trends are irrelevant, so such claims are malicious and unreal.
  • I absolutely disagree with the argument we should adopt nuclear, though I understand James’s stance. When I realised the huge problems we face, I decided my instinctive dislike of nuclear had to be put aside as, if it helped the climate, we had to deal with the issues.  But after some very extensive research firstly I recognise it is not even a low carbon energy but will soon be a high carbon fuel and secondly – the world has a ‘Peak Uranium’ coming as well as ‘Peak Oil’, and ‘Peak Food’.  The UK has more renewable energy resource that almost any other country, so for us to use nuclear would be extremely immoral.  Some countries have almost no renewables, and nuclear (if at all plausible) should be left for them.

Mike Hillard.