Posted on 11/29/2006 7:34:31 AM PST by Anti-Bubba182
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.
Given the dire situation we face, he urged people to drop the phrase "global warming," which has cosy connotations, and instead start to think of it as "global heating."
Prof Lovelock, is an independent scientist who first proposed the Gaia Theory, which argues that the Earth, like a body, is a complex and intricately balanced system which all works together to allow life to continue as we know it.
However he fears that as carbon dioxide emissions from man and the planet itself soar, the Earth will heat up causing water shortages, destroying life in much of the planet's oceans and making it impossible for plants to grow.
Prof Lovelock, who last night gave the 5th John Collier Lecture to the Institution of Chemical Engineers in London, said: "There is very good evidence of what happened 55 million years ago when as much carbon dioxide was put into the atmosphere by geology as is being done by us now.
"Temperatures zoomed up by 8 degrees and stayed there for 200,000 years then came back to normal."
He fears something similar may happen again, and warned: "if it does it is going to make this an exceedingly difficult century."
However Prof Lovelock said mankind has managed to survive previous climatic disasters of the past.
"There have been at least seven of these major climate changes before and we have to adapt," he said.
"It is going to be tough and there will be some evolution of humans during it.
"The survivors will be those humans that can make their way to refuges or Arctic places and survive there.
"I think an awful lot of people will die but I don't see the human species dying out.
"I would think a hot earth could not support much over 500 million."
He warned there are no simple solutions to global heating and there is nothing we can do now to "save the earth."
"People will try to do things but the way to really look at them is they are a bit like when your kidneys fail you can on dialysis - and who would refuse dialysis if death is the alternative?" he said.
"But we have to remember that all they are doing is buying us time. The problems will go on.
"Trying to take the job on of regulating the earth is about as crazy as you can get.
"It is something quiet beyond humans at this stage in their evolution."
Despite this people should do what they can to reduce their impact on the planet.
"There is no point driving around in a Chelsea tractor when you can drive a small car but it does not escape the fact that changes are underway," he warned.
Prof Lovelock's dire forecast for the future of the human race is far more pessimistic than the Government's own assessment of global warming.
Tony Blair told European leaders at a summit in Finland last month that it was not too late to reverse the effects global warming.
In an open letter to delegates he said there was a window of "10-15 years to take the steps we need to avoid crossing catastrophic tipping points."
This echoes the findings of Sir Nicholas Stern in his influential report on climate change.
In it he says there is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change if countries co-operate internationally.
You know the drill.
"The survivors will be those humans that can make their way to refuges or Arctic places and survive there."
Far away from the equator. In the chilly nordic climes, where roam the Canadians, Scandahooves, Aussies, New Zealanders, So. Africans, lotsa Ruskies.
Compare to various equatorial species.
Things may be okay, after all.
Next challenge: Last 200,000 to see this all.
Correct. He is a technician with a fifty year-old degree he never used, and delusions of grandiosity. He has no known peer-reviewed research, only junkscience books. and no data to back up his crank theories. In short he is a career tinkerer who makes up stuff as he goes along. "Independent Scientist " my a**. He's as much a scientist as Algore.
Guess that says it all as to how much it is caused by human consumption. zilch.
If they ever try and bring that asinine Koyoto Treaty back up for discussion it needs to be counteracted in full force, that thing would be a backbreaker in a lot of ways. I wish someone with clout would do the response documentary to Al Gore's piece of contrived, junk-science garbage.
'Tis funny; one of my neighbors asked me about this over the weekend, too.
It doesn't hurt Lovelock's public profile any to make crazy predictions that can't be verified -- if human population does drop to 500 million, by the time it happens I doubt anyone will be able to determine that Lovelock predicted it, and the situation would be so dire that none of the survivors would care.
Having said that -- I liken the relationship between Earth and humanity to the same relationship between my family and my house. There are a lot of systems in the house that we take for granted, which make the "livability" of the house comfortable, allowing a routine performance of family activities within the house. If one of those systems becomes significantly impaired, livability becomes more difficult and requires a greater expenditure of energy to compensate.
Imagine if the water system became contaminated with a dangerous toxin, with sufficient toxicity that exposure to the water had to be dramatically minimized. Drinking water would have to be imported; cleaning (clothing, personal, housewares) would have to be done elsewhere; waste removal would have to be done elsewhere; preparation of meals would be affected; etc. We would probably conclude that living in the house under such conditions was unacceptably difficult, so we'd find other, livable conditions until the problem was fixed (f it could be fixed).
So what if we couldn't move? What if the house was literally the only place we could live? Then we'd have no choice but to come up with some way to fix the house environment -- i.e., remove the contaminant from the water.
One of my points should be obvious from the previous paragraph. Speaking more to address Lovelock, humanity's presence on the Earth is tied to a number of important ecosystem components. If some of these components become impaired, then the Earth's livability will be affected. If one of the critical systems gets really impaired, then a lot of people will be affected and significant human suffering could ensue.
As a final "gotcha" point, think how dependent we are on insect pollination.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.