> Nevertheless, I think that Paltridge is on his game when he asks
> serious questions about the accuracy of climate model predictions *as
> applied to local area effects*. Even James Lovelock -- surely no
> denialist -- has recommended that Paltridge's work in the *specific
> area* of de-constructing our assumptions about distributed, climate
> change impacts be taken seriously.
>
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock>
That there is much greater uncertainty in localized predictions of climate change than in the more general conclusions is well within mainstream understanding, so what we have here -- at least as you're describing it -- is a straw man. Which fits well into the unoriginal loopiness cited in the Sourcewatch entry. Or does Paltridge name some names?
And as far as taking Lovelock's reading suggestions on the basis of his non-denialism, consider that he has often counseled the inaction of despair, which gives aid and comfort to all the wrong parties. But with this interview he seems to be shifting off his mounts, repeating without any actual knowledge the slanders against the CRU (now officially vindicated) and vague slamming of models without indicating what the hell he's talking about. He reminded me of Freeman Dyson, another nonagenarian who also gives good interview provided you're not burdened with too much background.
Last night after I read this I thought, "ah, gone emeritus". I was beaten to the punch:
<http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/03/lovelock_goes_emeritus.php>
>From the comments:
------------------------ Why does anybody really care what Lovelock says? It really irks me that he's treated as an authority on, well, anything.
[I heartily agree. He did some great stuff in the old days, but no more. And it is especially annoying that he is treated as "green", and therefore anything he says against AGW must be especially valid -W] ------------------------ The only people who care about Lovelock are the media...and Lovelock himself. Sad, although not quite as sad as the media types who continue to think he has something valid to say. Perhaps this is an off-shoot of 'Dysonism'? -------------------------
-- Andy