James Lovelock: Environment at point of no return. BILLIONS will die.

[Karmadillo]

Not nearly as important as girls gone missing in Aruba and cruise ship disappearances, but worth keeping in mind the next time someone suggests we must bow to the idiotic demands of Capitalism or bad things will happen.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=21&ItemID=9548

Point of No Return?
by David Cromwell
and David Edwards
January 18, 2006

Billions Will Die

The Independent and the Independent on Sunday (IoS) pride themselves on their environmental coverage. No doubt their editors will indicate today's dramatic front page as a case in point. The paper depicts the Earth from space overlaid by a dramatic headline: 'Green guru says: We are past the point of no return.' (Independent, January 16, 2006)

Scientist James Lovelock - who conceived the idea of the living Earth as a great super-organism, 'Gaia' - argues that, as a result of climate change, humanity is "past the point of no return" such that "civilisation as we know it is now unlikely to survive". (Michael McCarthy, 'Attempts to counter global warming are already doomed to failure, says Lovelock,' The Independent, January 16, 2006)

In an article which he describes as "the most difficult I have written", Lovelock predicts utter catastrophe for humankind:

"Before this century is over, billions of us will die, and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable... We will do our best to survive, but sadly I cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of China and India cutting back in time, and they are the main source of emissions. The worst will happen..." (Lovelock, 'The Earth is about to catch a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years,' The Independent, January 16, 2006)

Although Lovelock is here going beyond the scientific consensus - represented most authoritatively by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - there is evidence aplenty to support his argument. So how did we get to this point without the media even questioning the economic and political system that has now, if Lovelock is correct, pushed us over the edge of the abyss?

more...

[xchrom]

1. what can you say -- he's probably right.

we do the best we can --

[KoKo]

2. We, here on DU know this...you cannot pollute and violate living things

to this extent and not have a total melt down.

I think most folks feel...they will deal with it "step by step" as it comes. What can we do at this point? When the Nuclear Age was evident...we knew this was coming.

All efforts to stop it have succumbed to "Gotta Have it Now!" mentality.

We will have to live with it...and die with it...and everyone after us will live or die with it.

From the DAWN OF TIME...it's always been the "survival of the fittest." So, it will be into the future. :-( It's very SAD....

[Ron Green]

3. This is probably the most important story of this or any lifetime,

but just try to get anyone really interested in it.

:boring:

[dogindia]

4. kick. n/t

[acmavm]

5. Past the point of no return? I don't know if I buy that, buy who knows?

I've read articles that say we have only 20 years to salvage the planet. I've seen some that say we have an indefinite amount of time. Regardless, the fact is that the line in the sand is just around the corner (who knows, maybe we've already crossed it.

[The Doctor.]

19. No... it is a self-sustaining increase now. nt

[bloom]

6. That's putting it more bluntly

than a lot of people have heard - I'm sure.

Heard someone from Scripps a few months back saying if the projections were right - we are in for some serious devastation - didn't put numbers on it.

Even if we are past the point of no return - it would be nice to have some leadership that was capable of slowing it down. Gore comes to mind on that. What with his book.

[dogindia]

7. kick

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. LMAO! James Lovelock. LOL This is some funny stuff

I just read up on it. Holy cow this guy is wayyyyyyyyy out there LOL

[Karenina]

12. You're in denial.

And/or so disconnected from our common source that the clear signs that things are seriously amiss fly over your head. ALL OF US homo sapiens on this planet are in jeopardy. Never mind the destruction we've wreaked upon "lesser specicies" and ourselves. The ability of this blue marble to sustain life forms such as ours has been perhaps irretrievalby compomised. Laugh all you want now at those sounding the alarm. You and yours will eventually be shown IN LIVING COLOUR that your disrespect of Mother Nature is NOT a smart idea.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

21. LMAO! You Are Too Funny

If you can hear me from all the way up on your pedestal, please note I am 100% on the side of believing global warming is occurring and is extremely dangerous.

Having that said, saying the earth is a living organism gaia that has a fever and is going to kill off billions on its own by the end of the century is a tad wacko in my opinion.

Little overly judgemental of you to assume and declare that if you don't beleive the extremism of this viewpoint, than you don't believe in global warming at all.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

36. This is babble to me. Nothing more. I said several times already

that I believe in global warming, its impact, and I believe we need to develop policies to address it. What I DON'T believe, is that armageddon is by the end of the century and most of the inhabitants of the earth will be wiped out.

Feel free to sell the script to MGM though.

[Karenina]

39. Ignorance and arrogance.

.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

40. Right Back Atcha.

[1monster]

61. It is all happening so much more quickly than any of us thought it would.

I was having a conversation with someone the other day who said, "Well, it won't happen in our lifetime."

Perhaps not, but it is happening so much faster than most understand. It might not happen in my life time. I'm fifty. But it probably will in my thirteen year old son's life time. And I don't doubt that my generation will see more than just the beginnings of the end. We are seeing the beginnings NOW.

I have been telling my son for years to move inland after college.

I think I understated the time line.

I have lived on the coast for the last thirty-one years. When I first moved here, the beach at low tide went out at least a quarter of a mile. Not any more. The massive sand dunes that used to line the beaches are gone eaten away by the encroaching ocean. (Of course, those that survived that were bulldozed away to make room for condos.)

The coastal highway that was there then has been in the ocean for quite a few years now, and the highway which replaced the drowned highway is nearer to the ocean now than the original was when I first moved here.

In the Artic regions, polar bears are drowning as the ice they have lived on for centuries, perhaps millenia, literally melts under their feet. The Permafrost in parts of Alaska is no longer permanently frozen. It thaws in the summer season.

Huge pieces of ice break off of the glaciers on Antartica and become icebergs which melt some and break into smaller icebergs and melt more.

In 2004, we sat through four hurricanes in Florida. In 2005, we witnessed as named storms went from the prechosen alphabetic names all the way to Hurricane Zeta in DECEMBER. Had Zeta lasted just a few days more, it would have been the first hurricane of 2006.

Remember learning about the quest for the Northwest Passage as large part of early American history? There was no Northwest Passage then. Today, cruise boats take vacationing passenger through the Northwest Passage in the summer.

The Gulf Stream (that which keeps much of the east coast of the US and western Europe including northern France and Great Britan much warmer than its latitude allows in other parts of the world--Siberia, for example) has slowed by 25% or more. (I've heard higher numbers, but I'll be conservative here.)

Don't kid yourself. It is happening and there will be many many who won't survive.

[The Doctor.]

20. Well, people around here have had varying degrees of concern

for much longer than the past two-and-a-half months, and while I agree that this guy presents the 'worst possible case scenario', you should know that many of the things he mentions really are inexorable.

Even if we only lose our economies and a few hundred million people.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. I agree, I'm absolutely concerned as well.

I just ground my fear in rational science rather than taking it to the extreme, that's all.

[tavalon]

23. Way out there

because he purports a theory that the earth behaves as a unified system? Seems actually pretty reasonable to me. That he uses metaphor may bother you but I would take another look at the theory below the metaphor.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

24. There is much legitimate science behind the theory.

But then it goes wayyyy off tangent.

[bpilgrim]

30. yeah, global warming is just a liberal conspiracy

it's all in our heads!

more...
http://GLobalFreePress.com

peace

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

33. Yay!!!!!!! Another Wild Judgemental Conclusion Jumper!!!!!

I'm a firm believer that global warming is occurring. Try not to rush to judgement so quickly. Thanks. :hi:

[bpilgrim]

37. when you provide NOTHING - as usual - to back up your 'conclusions'

what do you expect :shrug:

it's a DU tradition to back up your wild guesses with a link :hi:

peace

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. To Back Up What Conclusion, That I Believe In Global Warming?

Ohhhhh, you mean that the world isn't gonna end by the end of the century? Well gee, do I really need to list a zillion links to support my opinion?

I'd rather think I didn't need to. I'm entitled to have the opinion that his end of the world views are extreme and not supported by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community.

And regardless, that doesn't excuse nor condone the foolishness of rushing to judgement and concluding something about me that was simply dead wrong.

I will throw the challenge to you then, good sir, since you are so behind backing things up with links, to provide me a list of REPUTABLE members of the scientific community that stand behind this grave armageddon warning, and are speaking out about it themselves trying to implore us to listen, or all the billions of us are gonna die.

Do that, and I will erase all preconceived notions in my mind as to the absurdity of his conclusions and will re-explore them. Do it not, and I walk away still confident that it is nothing more than extreme alarmist viewpoints from a single source.

Thanks :hi:

[bpilgrim]

47. LMAO! OPERATIONMINDCRIME. LOL This is some funny stuff

cya

peace

[Telly Savalas]

56. Thank you for supporting the liberal side of this issue...

despite people trying to shout you down.

You believe global warming is a problem, and that with responsible environmental policy we can tackle the problem.

This guy, on the other hand, claims it's too late and nothing can be done. If we accept this proposition, then we might as well adopt Bush style environmental policy. After all, we're fucked anyway.

And hell, if we're going to ignore the consensus of the scientific community, then what's the fucking problem with teaching intelligent design in public schools?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

59. Hear Hear! Very Well Said, and Thank You.

I do have a problem with tone when I get defensive (eh, kinda a side effect from the abuses I've suffered in life), but through it all I am true liberal and intellectual that appreciates logic and common sense.

You are spot on with the intelligent design reference by the way.

[Clara T]

44. What is endosymbiosis ?

Section 3: Dr Lynn Margulis:
Microbiological Collaboration of the Gaia Hypothesis

Currently a distinguished professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, the faculty home page for Dr Lynn Margulis plays down the scale of achievements which, against much opposition, Lynn Margulis has achieved over the last few decades. The data on this page tells us that Lynn Margulis is a Member of the National Academy of Science, obtaining her A.B., University of Chicago in 1957, an M.S. at the University of Wisconsin in 1960, Ph.D. at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1963 with Postdoctoral achievements in 1977 - Sherman Fairchild Fellow, California Institute of Technology, 19'79 - Guggenheim Fellow and 1983 - Año sabãtico en España. It concludes with a description of her current (1993) work concerning Microbial Symbionts and Organelle Heredity, and a short list of authored books and articles.

For that great cross-section of the populace who have little or no knowledge concerning the field of microbiology, it might seem that those who study algae, slime, bacteria and simple plant life are out on a limb by themselves, so to speak. And seemingly, this was exactly where Lynn Margulis placed herself when she commenced to contend with the tradional theories of cell evolution.

In reference to the Gaia Hypothesis, Lynn Margulis has been Lovelock's principal collaborator for twenty-five years. She is an expert on the role that microorganisms play in evolution. In the late 1960's, at the same time that the Gaia Hypothesis was first being stated, Margulis first put forward her creative theory of endosymbiosis. And very much like the Gaia Hypothesis when it was first formulated, the concept was so new and required such a degree of leading edge specialised information, that it was often completely misunderstood - not only by researchers in unrelated fields, but also by her peers.

What is endosymbiosis ?

A good question ... and based on the luxury of over two decades of further research work in the area, a definition of this conceptual process is relatively easy to obtain, however this was not always so. Briefly, we might say that endosymbiosis attempts to specify the relationship between organisms which live one within another in a mutually beneficial relationship with one serving as a host cell (the boss cell) and another the symbiont (the dependent organism) which resides within the host cell.

http://www.mountainman.com.au/gaia_lyn.html

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

45. She's Done Some Really Good Stuff. James Has As Well

But this newly declared armageddon scenario is just way too dramatic for me to not laugh at.

[Clara T]

54. It will happen

but to put forth one reason or another for it ultimately occurring may be a bit alarmist though I would also suggest we should all be ringing and listening to the alarms. That is difficult as there is so much clutter and white noise hammering away at our senses each moment of each day.

Add to that how completely removed we are from the consequences of our daily actions, how completely eviscerated we are from the source of all of our strength and the source of our very existence (the land) and how completely arrogant we are as a species (particularly the One-Dimensional Man wrapped in the technosphere) and all in all Lovelock's predictions are really not difficult at all to imagine however difficult they may be to confront.

There is a major problem with the global warming terminology in that it is too singular in structure and tends to abort thought from scanning the entire framework of the carnage of industrial society.

There is also another problem in this way (Lovelock's) of presenting the info in that folks tend to wait for The Big Die-Off instead of seeing it happen all around them more gradually. I would suggest that the process is already underway, despite the relative increase in population (much of that is tied to cheap energy which is now in decline).

When is fascism going to be here? Well it happens bit by bit. When is the economy going to crash? Well it's more likely to crumble piece by piece.

One would do well to pay attention to Lovelock's assessment which is really not such a novel mention.

Have you read any of Joseph Tainter's work?
Or the excellent work and impeccable research of David Pimentel which absolutely noone refutes?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

58. Thank You. Hands Down Most Intellectually Put Reply I've Ever Received.

It was refreshing, warranted and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I wish more took the time to discuss things in an intellectual manner this way.

I'm gonna look out for your name more, as I appreciate intellect and look forward to seeing more from you.

Thanks. :)

[Karmadillo]

9. Salon interview with Lovelock.

From August,17 2000.

http://www.salon.com/people/feature/2000/08/17/lovelock/

Aug. 17, 2000 | James Lovelock is an independent atmospheric scientist who lives and works deep in the English countryside. He has a knack for making discoveries of global significance. Lovelock is the inventor of the electron capture detector, a palm-size chamber that detects man-made chemicals in minute concentrations. In the late 1950s, his detector was used to demonstrate that pesticide residues were present in virtually all species on Earth, from penguins in Antarctica to mother's milk in the United States. This provided the hard data for Rachel Carson's landmark 1962 environmental book, "The Silent Spring," which launched the international campaign to ban the pesticide DDT.

In the late 1960s, Lovelock sailed from Britain to Antarctica and with his detector discovered the ubiquitous presence of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons), man-made gases now known to deplete the stratospheric ozone layer.

Today, Lovelock is best known as author of the "Gaia hypothesis," named after Gaea, Greek goddess of earth. The hypothesis states that the global ecosystem sustains and regulates itself like a biological organism rather than an inanimate entity run by the automatic and accidental processes of geology, as traditional earth science holds. In essence, Lovelock's hypothesis sees the surface of the Earth as more like a living body than a rock or a machine.

<edit>

Oxford University's Richard Dawkins, author of "The Selfish Gene," has condemned Gaia theory as a "profoundly erroneous" heresy against Darwin's "survival of the fittest" theory of natural selection. That's because Gaia theory holds that animals, plants and microbes not only compete but also cooperate to maintain their environment. However, Dawkins' mentor, William Hamilton, the distinguished evolutionary biologist who coined the phrase "the selfish, spiteful gene," recently proclaimed you "a Copernicus awaiting his Newton." Why the turnabout?

Bill Hamilton and I fought like cats. It was a very difficult association. Eventually, Bill, whose untimely death I mourn, said, "You've convinced me that the world does self-regulate. But that could not happen via natural selection." Then he and my student, Timothy Lenton, published a paper together, "Spora and Gaia," exploring how these regulatory mechanisms might develop. Bill came to see the ideological battle between Gaia and the selfish gene as pointless. In a sensible world, we need them both.

more...

[Odin2005]

16. Dawkins is a Gene selectionist.

He thinks individual genes are the the sole units of natural selection, a view that was popular in the seventies, and is still popular in molecular biology circles, but has lost favor to the school of thought that natural selection operates on multiple levels (genes, organisms, some types of social groups, and species), which accomodates the Gaia hypothesis much better. Most supporters of the Gaia hypothesis (myself included) nowdays, however, adhere to the "weak" or "co-evolutionary" version which has biological and geological influences as equally important (as opposed the traditional or "strong" version, which has the biosphere dominant). Lovelock's main goof was thinking oxygen levels never went above 25% because of fires; we now know that the oxygen levels got as high as 35% during the Carboniferous period (there was a lot more fires then though, many plants of the time seem to have been highly adapted to be resistant to fire, even in very wet areas that would rarely have fires in today's oxygen levels) , and the fire resistance found in many modern conifers may be a relic from when they first evolved).

[glitch]

17. Very interesting post. Do you have any recommended reading?

I would be most grateful :hi:

[Odin2005]

25. Sure.

Try some books by geologist Peter Ward and Astronomer Don Brownlee like Rare Earth and The Life and Death of Planet Earth. I got the info on Carboniferous plants from the book Oxygen: the Molecule that Changed the World. Also, many recent writers will tend to use the term "Earth Systems Science" instead of "Gaia hypothesis", so they aren't confused with the people who use "Gaia" in a spiritualistic way.

[glitch]

26. Perfect! Googled "Earth System Science" and got 136,000 results

Including the ICESS program at UCSB, my alma mater. Very pleased. Thank you!

[Odin2005]

31. You'ew welcome. :)

[depakid]

18. Dawkins is a reductionist- Lovelock is a systems theorist

That's the difference.

Reductionists miss what's going on at higher levels. They miss emergence and isomorphisms. The miss "wholes" and believe that, more or less, things are basically sums of their parts.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. Native peoples have been talking about this for a long time

I've even seen maps showing what the land will look like after the "earth changes" occur.

All I know is that this is the warmest January anyone remembers for my location, and it is very dry. I fear a drought by spring and wildfires during a torrid spring and summer. The fact that people have bought caves and made them into survival places here means to me that others are getting concerned as well.

[bush_is_wacko]

13. Weather changes and natural disaster ARE occurring at an astounding

rate. Some of those natural disasters are a direct result of what we have been doing to our home. As far as January goes, I understand it has been the warmest January on record everywhere that it hasn't been the rainiest, snowiest, and windiest January on record. This has been a strange January for sure. Dry as heck in half my state, more snow than ever in the other half. The wind is howling like the dickens on a daily basis over the entire state making even those warm days we've had kinda miserable. :crazy:

[dogindia]

11. Lovelock's homepage

http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/index.htm

[slackmaster]

14. It's surely a fact that most of us will die within the next 95 years

:dunce:

[Zookeeper]

28. I really do appreciate your humor....

but, as a parent reading this thread, my heart ached thinking about what life could be like for my kids in 40 or 50 years (and guessing that you're pretty young, for you, too.) :scared:

[upi402]

29. 50% of all statistics are made up

so I give myslef a 50/50 chance of getting out before then.
:shrug:

[mikelgb]

15. the earth must clense itself...

or face its own death.

[upi402]

27. Freepers still argue this one 'til the cows come home

Silly Freepers, the sky really IS falling.

[yknot]

32. Since freepers are culpable in this tragedy we should use them

as Soylent Green when farming fails. "Hey you gonna eat that freeper?"

[upi402]

35. "It rubs the lotion on its skin" from Joe Dirt

As leather becomes scarce, these freepers will keep the sun from burning us like the freepers before it.

[thinkingwoman]

38. It's the end of the world as we know it

and I feel fine.

No, really, I do.

I don't put anymore stock in scientific armaggedon stories than I do religious ones.

Is the climate changing? Absolutely yes. Will people die because of it? Uh huh. Will the world stop spinning and apes take over as the dominate species?

Probably not.

[hatrack]

41. I don't know - if apes took over, they probably couldn't do any worse

At least they know better than to shit where they eat.

[thinkingwoman]

50. Do they really now?

I wasn't aware of that. Perhaps we shouldn't wait for the end of the world. Perhaps we should just go ahead and put them in charge.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

43. I hope they let you off easier than I for *gasp* finding this theory a bit

extreme.

When I typed my first post I was completely under the impression that this article was posted here for mockery purposes and that it was one of those radical silly stories we were to laugh at. I sit here stunned now at how much I've actually had to defend against a viewpoint that this theory is just a weeeee bit overdramatic.

I hope you don't have to go through their judgemental abuse like I had to. :)

[Clara T]

46. A global control system of surface temperature, atmosphere composition?

With his initial hypothesis, Lovelock claimed the existence of a global control system of surface temperature, atmosphere composition and ocean salinity. His arguments were:
? The global surface temperature of the Earth has remained constant, despite an increase in the energy provided by the Sun
? Atmospheric composition remains constant, even though it should be unstable
? Ocean salinity is constant
Since life started on Earth, the energy provided by the Sun has increased by 25% to 30%; however the surface temperature of the planet has remained remarkably constant when measured on a global scale. Furthermore, he argued, the atmospheric composition of the Earth is constant. The Earth's atmosphere currently consists of 79% nitrogen, 20.7% oxygen and 0.03% carbon dioxide. Oxygen is the second most reactive element after fluorine, and should combine with gases and minerals of the Earth's atomosphere and crust. Traces of methane (at an amount of 100,000 tonnes produced per annum), should not exist, as methane is combustible in an oxygen atmosphere. This composition should be unstable, and its stability can only have been maintained with removal or production by living organisms.
Ocean salinity has been constant at about 3.4% for a very long time. Salinity stability is important as most cells require a rather constant salinity degree and do not tolerate much values above 5%. Salinity is partially controlled by evaporation processes, which mostly take place in lagoons. The only significant natural source of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is volcanic activity, while the only significant removal is through the weathering of some rocks. During weathering, a reaction causes the formation of calcium carbonate. This chemical reaction is enhanced by the bacteria and plant roots in soils, where they improve gaseous circulation. The calcium carbonate can be washed to the sea where it is used by living organisms with carboneous tests and shells. Once dead, the living organisms' shells fall to the bottom of the oceans where they generate deposits of chalk and limestone. In short, a rock was weathered, the resulting carbon dioxide processed by a living organism, and returned to a rock through sedimentation process. Part of the organisms with carboneous shells are the coccolithophores (algae), which also happen to participate in the formation of clouds. When they die, they release a sulfurous gas (DMS), (CH3)2S, which act as particles on which water vapor condenses to make clouds.
Lovelock sees this as one of the complex processes that maintain conditions suitable for life. The volcanoes make the CO2 enter the atmosphere, CO2 participates in limestone weathering, itself accelerated by temperature and soil life, the dissolved CO2 is then used by the algae and released on the ocean floor. CO2 excess can be compensated by an increase of coccolithophoride life, increasing the amount of CO2 locked in the ocean floor. Coccolithophorides increase the cloud cover, hence control the surface temperature, help cool the whole planet and favor precipitations which are necessary for terrestrial plants. For Lovelock, coccolithophorides are one stage in a regulatory feedback loop. Lately the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased and there is some evidence that concentrations of ocean algal blooms are also increasing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_theory_(science)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

49. Not too sure this is effective.

But if you are having fun, by all means continue! LOL

:)

[thinkingwoman]

48. I'm into flame retardant fashion

I never enter the GD without full gear. :hi:

They can flame away all they want. I just don't care.

But thanks for the support!

I think, sadly, there are people who gravitate to gloom and doom and all or nothing thinking. Silly me, I think it's possible for Gaia to heal herself, with a little help from her human friends. And if not, if "billions" of people die and civilization as we know it is wiped out, well, then I guess we'll have better things to do than listen to a handful of people say "I told you so" (assuming they are among the survivors of course).

I see that article as an excuse to do nothing. If the end of the world is at hand and cannot be stopped, what's the point of planting trees and curbing greenhouse gases then? :eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

51. It's An Absurd Notion, And Impedes Those Truly Fighting To Help The

environment. I 100% agree with you on that.

Silly thing is that all but a few of the 6+ billion people in the world will be dead by the end of the century simply by default.

[thinkingwoman]

52. "dead by the end of the century simply by default"

I hadn't looked at it that way!

Now you've got me :rofl: !

[Karmadillo]

65. You speak for those truly fighting to help the environment?

nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

66. It Is Called An Opinion. I Hope That's Allowable On A Message Board

:eyes:

[Karmadillo]

68. Relax. It was just a question. I thought maybe

you were in the know.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

69. I'm Relaxed :) It really did come off as challenging though.

But my apologies since that wasn't the case!

[crispini]

53. The original story

it's already in the archive, but here's the link:

Environment in crisis: 'We are past the point of no return'
Thirty years ago, the scientist James Lovelock worked out that the Earth possessed a planetary-scale control system which kept the environment fit for life. He called it Gaia, and the theory has become widely accepted. Now, he believes mankind's abuse of the environment is making that mechanism work against us. His astonishing conclusion - that climate change is already insoluble, and life on Earth will never be the same again.
By Michael McCarthy Environment Editor
Published: 16 January 2006
The world has already passed the point of no return for climate change, and civilisation as we know it is now unlikely to survive, according to James Lovelock, the scientist and green guru who conceived the idea of Gaia - the Earth which keeps itself fit for life.

In a profoundly pessimistic new assessment, published in today's Independent, Professor Lovelock suggests that efforts to counter global warming cannot succeed, and that, in effect, it is already too late.

Article Length: 1267 words (approx.)

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article338878.ece

This one hasn't scrolled off yet:

James Lovelock: The Earth is about to catch a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years
Each nation must find the best use of its resources to sustain civilisation for as long as they can
Published: 16 January 2006

.... snip ....
This article is the most difficult I have written and for the same reasons. My Gaia theory sees the Earth behaving as if it were alive, and clearly anything alive can enjoy good health, or suffer disease. Gaia has made me a planetary physician and I take my profession seriously, and now I, too, have to bring bad news.

The climate centres around the world, which are the equivalent of the pathology lab of a hospital, have reported the Earth's physical condition, and the climate specialists see it as seriously ill, and soon to pass into a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years. I have to tell you, as members of the Earth's family and an intimate part of it, that you and especially civilisation are in grave danger.

Our planet has kept itself healthy and fit for life, just like an animal does, for most of the more than three billion years of its existence. It was ill luck that we started polluting at a time when the sun is too hot for comfort. We have given Gaia a fever and soon her condition will worsen to a state like a coma. She has been there before and recovered, but it took more than 100,000 years. We are responsible and will suffer the consequences: as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics

.... snip.....

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article338830.ece

Here's the third story:

Why Gaia is wreaking revenge on our abuse of the environment
By Michael McCarthy
Published: 16 January 2006
With anyone else, you would not really take it seriously: the proposition that because of climate change, human society as we know it on this planet may already be condemned, whatever we do. It would seem not just radical, but outlandish, mere hyperbole. And we react against it instinctively: it seems simply too sombre to be countenanced.

But James Lovelock, the celebrated environmental scientist, has a unique perspective on the fate of the Earth. Thirty years ago he conceived the idea that the planet was special in a way no one had ever considered before: that it regulated itself, chemically and atmospherically, to keep itself fit for life, as if it were a great super-organism; as if, in fact, it were alive.

Article Length: 985 words (approx.)
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article338879.ece

[Warren DeMontague]

55. The honest truth? We don't KNOW what will happen.

It could be a few degrees, it could be a lot worse. One thing is for sure, we can't keep dumping CO2 into the atmosphere and expect things to stay the same.

Going "Oh no, we're All Dooooooooooooooooooooomed" seems awfully counter-productive to me, tho. As long as there's life, there's hope. Maybe Nasrudin can get the damn donkey to fly.

[AnnieBW]

57. Some Of Us Actually Believe In Gaia

Some of us here actually believe in the "Gaia Hypothesis", or at least that the Earth is a vast, interconnected system that many of the ancient peoples viewed as a life-giving Goddess and/or God.

[OneBlueSky]

62. the Gaia Hypothesis has always made sense to me . . .

all natural systems are interconnected and self-regulating, so why would the Earth as a whole be an exception? . . . people like Lovelock and Thomas Berry have the right take on how the natural world operates, imo . . .

[thinkingwoman]

63. I believe in Gaia too

I just don't believe this guy has all the answers.

[Odin2005]

60. Wait a sec, Lovelock thinks only the arctic will be tolerable?

The earth would have the get many times warmer than even the most severe realistic climaste models show for that to happen. The permanent arctic sea ice will be gone, the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheet will be somewhat smaller, and the climate belts will shift poleward by a few hundred miles; but the East Antarcic ice sheet, which holds most of the world's fresh water, will not be affected that much. Most climatologists predict a climactic regime similar to the one about 5 million years ago, significantly warmer than now, but still in the ice-house mode we have been in for the last 40 million years.

[Skidmore]

64. We may all very well be disintegrated in a nuclear holocaust

of global proportions by the time * and PNAC are done.

[NoPasaran]

67. Glad I never wasted any time

Setting up a 401k.