Earth's Doctor

According to James Lovelock, a writer at the BBC, the earth is becoming sick, and Gaia will take her revenge if nothing is done!!! This is the apocalyptic tone of the recent article from BBC, "The illness in Planet Earth". (Thanks to wikipedia, I too now know what is meant by Gaia.)

From what I have found, James Lovelock is a reasonably respected scientist, but I can't help but think that the sensational journalist in him got a bit keyboard-happy. The first three-quarters of this article are little better than a maniacal rant. Within the article, the temperature increase is presumed to be on the order of 3-5 degrees Celsius (5-9 degrees Fahrenheit) over the course of the century, but what I don't know is how this change leads to the claim that "Siberia and northern Canada may flourish." The people there probably wouldn't complain if it got a little warmer, but with an average annual temperature of 0C, something tells me an average annual temperature of 4C will not suddenly become the new 'hottest vacation spot' (pardon the pun). Lovelock also predicts a mass exodus of people from mainland Europe to Great Brittan. I may not live in Europe, but it did study in London, and from that experience I can not fathom what makes him think there will be an exodus to Great Brittan of all places.

On the other hand, Lovelock promotes a very noble idea: the idea that, like WWII Brittan, people are charged with a sense of purpose and are willing to work once the call arises. I have never seen, nor have I ever been a part of such an event, but what an event it would be! Would it be good if everyone came to the rescue of the earth? If everyone took responsibility for themselves, and took initiative to undo what has already been done? If only I could imagine such a response! But then I think about the ramifications of those hypothetical actions. All those power plants that produce all those noxious gasses provided power for us to use. All those cars that pollute the air transport us around the world. The bottom line is that the easiest way to pollute less is to use less, but who is going to volunteer for that?

Lovelock does something in this article that I do not see often, but wish I did; he offers a critique of his views within the article itself! These may be skewed too, but they do temper the sensationalism expressed in the article, bringing the ideas of 'certain doom' down to the level of 'probabilistic unpleasantness'. One of the most key ideas presented in the critique of the article is that idea that assertions about issues like global warming, which are not completely understood by science, should not be presented as scientifically verified facts. Much of the science used to understand global warming is still coming into maturity, and should be treated as such.