Share This Page

Warming excommunication: Who's the 'extremist'?

| Saturday, May 5, 2012, 12:30 a.m.

Professor, environmentalist and best-selling author James Lovelock once was regarded as the father of climate studies. But now he's an extremist in the eyes of leading climate cluckers for having the audacity to expose their faith as "alarmist."

Oh, the author of "The Revenge of Gaia" and preacher of global-warming Armageddon still believes that climate change is occurring, but not as fast as previously postulated.

"The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium," Mr. Lovelock, 92, tells MSNBC. Temperatures have remained constant "whereas (they) should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that."

So much for man-made influences.

To the Church of Global Warming, that's heresy. And the pit bulls of postulation pounced.

Among them, Penn State's Michael Mann, inventor of the discredited "hockey stick" global-temperature graph, who in an email to LiveScience insisted that Lovelock's views were never in line with "mainstream" science.

Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., was less kind: "The fact is (Lovelock) knows little or nothing about climate change."

So, now Lovelock is an extremist? For all its "settled science," the climate-change club sure is an intolerant group.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.