Scientist James Lovelock believes global warming will winnow the earth's population of 6.6 billion people down to 500 million by the end of the twenty-first century. Every cloud has its silver lining apparently. "You could quite seriously look at climate change as a response of the system intended to get rid of an irritating species: us humans," Lovelock told Rolling Stone. "Or at least cut them back to size." Rolling Stone notes that "as a scientist, [Lovelock] introduced the revolutionary theory known as Gaia--the idea that our entire planet is a kind of superorganism that is, in a sense, 'alive.' Once dismissed as New Age quackery, Lovelock's vision of a self-regulating Earth now underlies virtually all climate science." That last part explains quite a lot. Lovelock offers the idea of a giant solar shade as possible protection against global warming, believes Europe will soon resemble the Sahara, and thinks climate change will make war between Russia and China inevitable. In a moment of humility, he admits: "I could be wrong about all this." And if the eighty-four-year old crank/"scientist" is wrong, he won't be around to issue a mea culpa. But perhaps Lovelock's giant solar shade will be the memorial to his foolishness.

You do realize that your anti-global warming rants makes you sound like a 9/11 truther.

And again for libs, humans are bad and are in a constant battle against Mother Earth. If we just all went away, things would be so much better. For who? Who would know that things are better, plants and single cell animals?

The Birkenstock crowd is working hard to convince us that with Government's help that we should go back to the good old days when there were no internal combustion machines and people tilled the land by hand and lived by candle light. Sorry man, the genie is out of the bottle and even while the Right Reverend Al Gore is proselytizing about conservation and carbon credits, he's living large in his 40,000 sq. ft. mansion, driving his SUV's and traveling around in one of his many Gulfstreams.

Dear "Larry'sCraig'sBigGayParade":

There is an important difference between the past and the future. There is an even more stark difference between our knowledge of the past and our knowledge of the future.

A better comparison would be between the Global Warming fearmongers/powergrabbers, and the WMD-in-Iraq fearmongers/powergrabbers. Both are "certain", both mock their opponents for wanting to proof, and both scare their audiences with prospects of American cities being destroyed.

Athena,

That ana-logy is EXACT. The global warming fruitbats are the exact equivalent of the WMD Hawks. They were meant for each other, big government socialist internationalis, (the "left") and big fovernment socialist nationalism (the "right").

I hadn't read about Lovelock before but what a complete sicko.

It looks like Mother Earth is beating herself up in California and the environmental Nazis are wringing their hands about the amount of pollution it's causing. If they haven't already, it's only a matter of time before they get around to how humans are at fault.

So, did this kind of thing ever happen in an era when humans did not roam the planet? And, if it did, with nobody to extinguish the fires didn't it cause even more pollution?

Just askin'.

Apparently you guys find it not politically correct to make claims of causality involving both humans and the environment.

Climate change deniers are much like flat earthers. The proof exists, but they either completely ignore it or come up with b1zarre alternate hypotheses to explain away the data. And like the flat earthers before them, climate change deniers will die off. It's already happening. Today even conservative religious leaders are beginning to realize that humans affect Earth's climate.