Will this change the minds of manmade global warming worshippers?

Nothing will change the degenerate minds of the AGW hysteria people. For example: Their theory is chiseled in concrete that a rise in CO2 results in a corresponding temperature rise. This is what they are so worried about. They tax it. They enact laws regarding this. They frighten people with this. But during the last decade the temperature is falling and yet the CO2 level has risen.

The fact that theory is all shot to smithereens mainly ignored. They do know about this and is recorded by one John Barnes, climate scientist and confirmed warmie: “If you look at the last decade of global temperature, it’s not increasing,” Barnes said. “There’s a lot of scatter to it. But the [climate] models go up. And that has to be explained. Why didn’t we warm up?”..."We do have satellites that can measure the energy budget, but there’s still assumptions there. There’s assumptions about the oceans, because we don’t have a whole lot of measurements in the ocean.”.

But does the IPCC give the Kyoto money back? Does any country quash any of the many inane laws it enacted due to the GW hysteria? No. Because it is a religion and it is considered heresy for us uneducated peons to voice reason. Only our money and obedience is allowed to enter their green temple. For we are the unwashed poor who must pay and obey to their beliefs and tenets.

These high priests take money out of the economy for nothing and call us greedy. They call us polluters and carbon footprint abusers as they jet off to South Africa for their global conference. And they can do this because they are the high priests who are the only ones who can save the world.

These high priests take money out of the economy which could help feed the starving and undernourished and consider it a human sacrifice to their green god.

These high priests ban DDT which almost eradicated malaria from the face of the earth and call the millions of those who fall victim to the disease a sacrifice to their green god.

It certainly is a religion and a false one at that. It certainly is a religion and one that takes blind faith in believing it and ignoring nature's actions or casting them aside.

The members of this religion are in three groups.

1. The high priests who live in the lap of luxury as they pull off this scam.

2. The main priesthood who Stalin referred to as the useful idiots.

3. The laity who are easily frightened and to stupid to tie their own shoe laces.

Even the true God the creator of the universe cannot change these heathen's minds so how could me or you?

Is determined by where the expenditures are coming from. Is it useful resource intensive, labor intensive, or each? You say it charges cash, but who is that being paid to? If that is truly for the benefit of the planet, then it will have to seem unconscionable to place a cost tag on it unless it required placing the economy of a country in peril. The labor a part of it must be minimal. Authorities must work pro bono. Skilled and manual people should work on a pay commensurate with navy pay grades. Materials should be offered via individuals who have the finest deliver and at not more than wholesale price. The whole applicable rate must be based on the web measurable price of the damages brought on with the aid of the climate trade after subtracting the price of the net measurable benefits of climate alternate. The cost should then be annualized and paid out over the subsequent 75 years (representing the approximate last 12 months of those who are born after we begin the mission).

Why link to a blog rather then the interview?

"Lovelock does not miss a chance to criticise the green movement that has long paid heed to his views. "It's just the way the humans are that if there's a cause of some sort, a religion starts forming around it. It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion. I don't think people have noticed that, but it's got all the sort of terms that religions use. The greens use guilt. You can't win people round by saying they are guilty for putting CO2 in the air."

He displays equal disdain for those who do not accept science on climate change: "They've got their own religion. They believe that the world was right before these damn people [the greens] came along and want to go back to where we were 20 years ago. That's also silly in its own way."

Looks like maxbushian has another alt. good for you.

Best option for you is to read the source, not a selectively edited facsimile of the source.

Lovelock is a pragmatist. If you read his book "The revenge of Gaia" you would know he argued strongly for the use of nuclear power in place of coal. He argued against wind technology because he believes on large scales it can alter wind patterns (I've asked climate scientists about this but never got a satisfactory answer... I don't think there is sufficient evidence to say it is either a reasonable or unreasonable hypothesis). So he is opposed to caol and he is opposed to wind and he thinks that the world needs to reduce CO2 emissions in the best way possible. As a pragmatist, he accepts that the Fukashima disaster has taken nuclear power off the table so he is instead proposing natural gas because it produces less CO2 and other pollution than coal.

So does this mean he disregards climate science? Does this mean we should stop working on renewable technologies because Lovelock proposes a different solution? Not at all.

The thing about science is, we don't all have to have the same opinion nor agree on everything. Diversity of opinion is what enables us to produce the best workable solutions. Lovelock is neither a heretic as one denialist pointed out in an earlier question (http://tinyurl.com/8a5u9wx) nor is he recanting anything other than his endorsement of nuclear power as a short term solution and his certainty in future climate scenarios:

"[E]arlier this year he admitted to MSNBC in an interview reported around the world with somewhat mocking headlines along the lines of "Doom-monger recants", that he had been "extrapolating too far" in reaching such a conclusion and had made a "mistake" in claiming to know with such certainty what will happen to the climate."

"He displays equal disdain for those who do not accept science on climate change: "They've got their own religion. They believe that the world was right before these damn people [the greens] came along and want to go back to where we were 20 years ago. That's also silly in its own way."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/15/...

Yeah... not exactly the smoking gun you were hoping for, is it? Still, it is great you guys have something to post repeatedly for a couple of days and you can all give each other best answer and feel better about yourselves. It makes me happy to know that in times like this where there are no real questions about science to answer, we can contribute in some small way by making you feel just that little bit less inadequate and that your life is so tragically empty.

First off. Your question is merely an excuse to express your opinion. This type of BS question is normally posted by a DA denier.

If your source was a true environmentalist, he wouldn't support fracking as it introduces hundreds of nasty chemicals to the environment. Sounds like he has received some oil money.

If you are going to post quotes the post a link. Daily mail articles are frequently full of quotes without identifying the source or credentials of those quoted.

Greeks are starving because of corruption and mismanagement by the government.

Global warming is not a religion and it doesn't have a God. In fact Christians as a group asre staunch deniers. If it isn't caused by God, it isn't real. That is their belief.

You are totally full of "S"

Dubious quotes copied and pasted mindlessly from anti-science blogs run by con artists and liars prove nothing. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/15/gaia-scienti...

Except that you are a probably an ignorant dupe of fossil fuel industry propaganda:

U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&...

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

http://nationalacademies.org/morenews/20100716.htm...

“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”

http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/

“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”

http://www.newscientist.com/topic/climate-change

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200602/bac...

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/#feature

... ...

No.

This will not change anyone's mind.

And it need not.

A cause or ideal can be followed to see what is to be learned.

As a form of education.

Lovelock has learned, others will learn.

Earth continues as is.

Keep learning.

Make each a good day.

Have you noticed that your fundamentalism is as deep as those you oppose? It's a common problem with fanaticism, you tend to mimic your perceived opponents.

You seem like a bit of whacko worshipper yourself.

Since you misrepresent the facts of the case, No