Home » Culture, Global Warming, Science » Scientist Says Global Warming A Lost Cause

Scientist Says Global Warming A Lost Cause

Controversial scientist predicts planetary wipeout

Billions of people could be wiped out over the next century because of climate change, a leading expert said.

Professor James Lovelock, who pioneered the idea of the Earth as a living organism, said as the planet heats up humans will find it increasingly hard to survive.

He warned that as conditions worsen, the global population which is currently around 6.5 billion, may sink as low as 500 million.

Prof Lovelock also claims that any attempts to tackle climate change will not be able to solve the problem, merely buy us time.

I’m sure glad that’s settled. Now we can stop worrying and enjoy the little time we have left. It’s a race to see whether ebola or global warming will do us in first. Party like it’s 1999 is what I say! :razz:

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

16 Responses to Scientist Says Global Warming A Lost Cause

  1. Hey, wait just a minute. Weren’t scientists back in the 70′s or so warning us about a coming global ICE AGE? I know we had a couple of really cold winters a while ago, and in northern Indiana, the Blizzard of ’78 was a real doozy, but I don’t think that’s what they were warning about. I also don’t think they were prophesying about the animated movies, either. Maybe it’s just that a global Ice Age is harder to pin on humanity than global warming.

  2. I’m wondering where they are getting their numbers from. They seem to be pretty much in agreement that it will be 90% of the population that will be destroyed. What is the basis (real or imagined) for that number?

  3. What is the basis (real or imagined) for that number?

    The Omega Man. Maybe Soylent Green.

    Something with Charlton Heston, certainly.

  4. Conspiracy websites I guess. You know, all that stuff about concentration camps and NWO…

  5. From the NDE perspective, I don’t see the big problem in global warming catastrophies. If only some survive or if none survive, the ones that do will be the most suitable to carry on the gene pool. If all humans perish, it shouldn’t be but a few million years before we most likely resurface again. Then, we will just continue as we always have. :) Why fight global warming if NDE provides us with the our planets true history?

  6. KMO,

    I don’t think NDE suggests that species should stop trying to adapt to its environment. Perhaps this time it is a little different in that our species is trying to adapt its environment to us. But then again, it seems at least partly or largely our doings that is making the environment change to begin with, so it seems responsible to try to reverse the damage done. Whether one believes in NDE or not, we all have an instinct to survive and to preserve our species. My faith in the Scriptures suggest that we have been given responsibility to care for our environment, and thus it is not just an instinct, but a moral issue as well.

  7. Hey Paul,

    My point is, according to the Naturalistic worldview NDE champions, I cannot see how they can suggest any “shoulds” or “should nots” whatsoever, especially the “should” for personal accountability in perserving the entirety of our species. From my understanding and perspective, those who accept the “NDE story” should welcome and look forward to all challenges that might further their wonderfully creative story. What might the human race become after such a catastrophy? If I accepted such a story, I would be curious to imagine how it all turns out. Why stay merely human if we might be able to become something altogether more interesting, perhaps even something greater?

  8. Paul Brand,

    Good point, the first instruction to humanity was to tend the garden, in other words act as stewards of all “creation” or the cosmos, whatever term you prefer. And later the instruction to “deny one’s self” came along. Ouch. How in the world do we justify accumulating and consuming ever more big kids’ toys? Focus on material prosperity, and become spiritually poor.

    On another note, I wonder if the Center for Inquiry and the other top Materialists have been alerted to the following map of the per capita generation of those murderous greenhouse gas emissions? http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/?2275

    Notice anything unusual about it? Yes indeed, the most secular, non-religious regions of the planet produce the most toxic gas emissions!!!

    Oh sure, we know, just because A and B are correlated does not mean that A caused B. We were all in attendance for that class in Logic and Reasoning 101.

    However, stop and give it just a bit more thought. The Materialist elites are also wonderful environmentalists of course, we won’t take that away from them. Sure they are, in terms of what they say. However, anyone ever work in a company where leadership said one thing, but then put a system of rewards and punishments in place that went in the opposite direction? People line up according to incentives, not according to pontifications.

    So, what is the Materialist system of incentives? Let’s see, there is nothing or nobody in the Great Beyond that holds me accountable, for starters. And then, we are evolved animals competing in the game of natural selection. And finally, when I die, it is fade to black, no accounting for how I lived, mind you. Hmmmm. No matter what the Materialist or the evolutionary psychologist might say about altruism, the take away message is clear — live for oneself, material and pleasure is everything. Sorry, no amount of clever reasoning or propoganda on the part of the elites is going to change this one bit!!

  9. Ekstasis,

    I’m a little confused after looking at your link. North America and Australia have the greatest level of C02 emissions per capita. I think Canada, US, and Australia are more religious in general than say Europe. You’ll have to explain to me what I’m missing.

    I do agree with you in part about morality. It does seem that atheists need not concern themselves with the distant future that doesn’t effect themselves. But, I think many of them do anyway (whether that is rational or not, I’m not entirely sure). Christians are often seen as opposed to global warming. I can think of two reasons for this. One is that Christians trust that God will provide, and that he created the earth such that it could sustain billions of people. The other reason is that Christ is often belived to be coming soon. Now, whether Christ is coming soon or not, I do not know. But, this seems to be a difficult issue to address to Christians. Environmentalism is associated with tree-huggers, hippies, left-wing socialism, evolution, animal rights activists etc. I don’t think these associations are justifiable.

    Having said that, I’m pretty sure there are many non-religious people who are senior executives with big oil companies, who wouldn’t stop at anything to avoid cutting ghg emissions. There are many non-religious people who don’t think twice about their own personal emissions from their 10000 sq ft homes, their SUVs, their private jets, etc.

  10. Paul Brand,
    I don’t think NDE suggests that species should stop trying to adapt to its environment.

    NDE doesn’t allow for any telic component such as “trying” let alone “stop trying”. That would imply a goal.

  11. Lurker, I think it is self-evident that all species try to survive. No one denies it, NDE certainly doesn’t, and certainly affirms it. I’m not sure how you got the impression otherwise.

  12. Ekstasis,

    My earlier comment didn’t seem to go through. The map you linked to suggests that North America and Australia have the highest ghg emissions. Were you suggesting that these countries were the most secular?

  13. KMO,

    “From my understanding and perspective, those who accept the “NDE story” should welcome and look forward to all challenges that might further their wonderfully creative story.”

    Why should NDEists do anything? Why should they welcome change, or evolution for that matter? I think an NDEist accepts evolution and natural selection as a true explanation as to how things got to where they are now. But, that doesn’t translate necessarily into an “ought to”.

  14. That darn Axis of Ice…they’re either going to melt and drown us or slowly encroach over our land, freezing everything in their path. We should nuke them into submission. ;)

  15. . Paul Brand // Nov 30th 2006 at 1:34 pm

    Lurker, I think it is self-evident that all species try to survive. No one denies it, NDE certainly doesn’t, and certainly affirms it. I’m not sure how you got the impression otherwise.

    Comment by Paul Brand — November 30, 2006 @ 1:34 pm

    You didn’t say species try to “survive”. You said they try to “adapt to their environment”, which is, I think, what Lurker was challenging. How does a species of anything try to adapt it’s physical body?

  16. Russ, I didn’t say that species try to adapt their physical bodies. There’s other ways to adapt to one’s environment other than to change their genes.

Leave a Reply