British scientist: Maybe we need to put democracy “on hold” to deal with climate change

posted at 5:23 pm on March 29, 2010 by Allahpundit

It’s been awhile since we had a good “global-warming alarmist advocates horrifying authoritarian solution” story on the site, hasn’t it? The last one, I think, was that Canadian columnist’s love letter to Chinese population control back in December. Come to think of it, we haven’t had much juicy atheist content or police taser viral videos lately, either.

Thank goodness for Sarahcuda. Without her, this blog would be unrecognizable.

Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change from radically impacting on our lives over the coming decades. This is the stark conclusion of James Lovelock, the globally respected environmental thinker and independent scientist who developed the Gaia theory.

It follows a tumultuous few months in which public opinion on efforts to tackle climate change has been undermined by events such as the climate scientists’ emails leaked from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit.

“I don’t think we’re yet evolved to the point where we’re clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change,” said Lovelock in his first in-depth interview since the theft of the UEA emails last November. “The inertia of humans is so huge that you can’t really do anything meaningful.”

One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is “modern democracy”, he added. “Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

I was unaware that the “best democracies” agreed on that — America managed to hold an election during World War II — but if leading greens want to push this talking point, I’m happy to call it to the attention of the stupid, unevolved, voting public. Oh, here’s some related news for your pea brain: Turns out the feared slowdown in the Gulf stream due to global warming isn’t happening after all. Like the man says, it’s very complex. Just trust him.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Where were these people 63 million years ago when the T-Rex and Velociraptors were on the brink of extinction?

;-(

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 29, 2010 at 11:10 PM

“I don’t think we’re yet evolved to the point where we’re clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change,” said Lovelock in his first in-depth interview since the theft of the UEA emails last November. “The inertia of humans is so huge that you can’t really do anything meaningful.”

Stalin sure was able to light a fire under their butts, wasn’t he, Mr. Lovelock?

disa on March 29, 2010 at 11:44 PM

I was unaware that the “best democracies” agreed on that

Oh, you know – like Saddam’s, for one.

disa on March 29, 2010 at 11:46 PM

The day that democracy is suspended, James Lovelock should be arrested for being criminally stupid.

Hawthorne on March 30, 2010 at 3:12 AM

Lovelock is 90, well past his NHS expiration date, so it’s clear they stopped his treatment for dementia already.

n0doz on March 30, 2010 at 6:24 AM

Also of concern is that Lovelock (apparently a Fellow of the Royal Society) could make any kind of statement that begins “I don’t think we’re yet evolved to the point where…”.

This implication of an idea of “progress” is simply not a part of the thinking of modern biology.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html

One of the more common misconceptions, with a history long before Darwin, is that evolution is progressive; that things get more complex and perfect in some way. In fact, this view is attributed more to social and religious attitudes of 18th and 19th century European culture than to any evidence. … At the time of the ‘modern synthesis’ [note 9] in the 1940s, the notion of progress was quietly dropped, … But by the 1970s, progress had been abandoned by working biologists.

The very idea of political progressivism is shot through with this abandoned concept from biology. Progressives think that somehow their thinking must be superior because ‘progress’ is “scientific”. Unfortunately for them, it is not.

dissent555 on March 30, 2010 at 7:54 AM

the globally respected

Respected by who? J-school graduates?

MNHawk on March 30, 2010 at 8:03 AM

James Lovelock, the globally respected environmental thinker and independent scientist who developed the Gaia theory.

That’s all I need to know.

Akzed on March 30, 2010 at 9:25 AM

dissent555 on March 30, 2010 at 7:54 AM

It’s the same thinking behind the Montessori Schools: children are smarter than adults due to evolutionary progress.

Akzed on March 30, 2010 at 9:26 AM

It’s quite possible that only some humans are too stupid. I mean who runs around all day chanting to Gaia — And does she answer?

tarpon on March 30, 2010 at 9:31 AM

Translation…

“Stop blocking me with your fair minded bit of skepticism over cooked numbers! You’re preventing me from getting billions in your tax dollars for “Climate Research”

Razgriez on March 30, 2010 at 10:51 AM

LOL!
I was recently involved in a blog debate over the extinction of horse species in North America.
The person was trying to use the presence of Iberian (ice age) genetics in American mustang populations to prove they never went extinct, which is not what that evidence indicates.
I finally got them to realize their error & they made a comeback w/ “but I know what kind of person you are” & left the blog in a hissy.
This person didn’t consider themselves a liberal, but advocated the forfeiture of my personal property rights over some personal ‘moral’ of their invention.
These people come in all shapes & sizes.
They advocate their view bcs it is ‘moral’ or ‘the right thing to do’, ‘action is imperative’ if we are to save the world, a species, whatever, & on & on.
It never ends with these people.
They don’t need facts in the end to maintain their intentions over you-they want the power to control you, at all costs.
That is their goal.

Badger40 on March 30, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Aw…I read through every comment and failed to see where oakland said she agreed with this stupidity. Surely she does, I mean the science is settled!!!

Do any of you think she recognizes the difference between this nakedly political statement and actual science? Yeah, neither do I.

Oh, and oakland, before you get your panties in a wad over my speculations, you should at least try to admit (to yourself, if not us) that this is where your ideological adherence to gaia worship always ends. There is simply no other alternative, once your kind decides they have to save the earth at all costs, there is no “maximum” body count.

runawayyyy on March 30, 2010 at 2:19 PM

If Obama finds out about this idea, we’re screwed!
Well, screwed sooner, anyway.

Cybergeezer on March 30, 2010 at 4:19 PM

Comment pages: 1 2