Talk:James Lovelock/Archive 1

Microwave oven
I have heard it mentioned that James Lovelock had the idea for the microwave oven but never patented the idea... unfortunately I have no sources to reference for this. Can anybody verify this claim? PeterLean10:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Percy Spencer discovered that radar emissions can cook food. His work led to his company, Raytheon, developing amicrowave oven for commercial and institutional use. Later on, Raytheon, a defense contractor, bought Amana Refrigeration for its distribution network and developed a home microwave oven. --MWS 16:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Lovelock specifically dismissed the claim during his episode of BBC Radio 4 Desert Island Disks a few years ago. He did however say that he and his colleagues working at the National Institutes of Health during the early war years may have been amongst the first people to regularly use the principle; they were freezing cold and had only intermittent electricity, so used the idea they had heard about from Spencer to cook their meals. At the time there was no patent on the idea and Lovelock expressed regret that he had not gone on to try to patent it; this may be where the story originates. Mark Thomas. 81.159.173.45 21:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting - however the claim that he invented it is made on his website. 82.69.28.5511:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Mass extinction
The link "This view has been challenged" isn't exactly substantive - it's just a blog entry where someone says "duh, no it isn't". Perhaps there's a better link that could be used instead? Vashti 16:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Its a good blog from a climate scientist (James Annan in fact; disclaimer: I know him) but I admit its just a blog. But then again the original article isn't great either - its just Lovelock sounding off in the Indy. I thought there should be some indication that many people think what he has said is dubious. You can have my takehttp://mustelid.blogspot.com/2006/01/lovelock-were-all-going-to-die.html if you prefer :-). William M. Connolley 17:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC).
 * Oh, and of course: if you can find a better link, please use that. William M. Connolley17:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC).


 * Reading between Lovelock's lines, I figured he was referring to the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum in his seemingly outlandish predictions (though it would have helped if he'd been clearer; Indy editors?). As I'm sure everyone is doubtless aware, this is believed to be the closest natural analogue to our current Anthropoceneexperiment (though there are lots of reasons to dispute this closeness).  It appears to have been rather extreme (he says), and were something like it to happen again, it probably would disrupt civilisation rather more profoundly than many future simulations suggest.  Anyway, might be worth checking up on this when he publishes his book.  UnlikeJames' blog, I'm reluctant to cast Lovelock into the same pit of insanity that seems to have claimedDavid Bellamy.  --Plumbago 09:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Gunther Wachsmuth
Someone added:


 * James Lovelock was not the first to come up with the idea of the planet as a self regulating, living organism. This hypothesis was first put forward by Gunther Wachsmuth in his book, "Etheric Formative Forces in the Cosmos, Earth and Man" published in 1932. Wachsmuth was Rudolph Steiner's secretary for many years. The book is out of print but a copy can be seen at the Lucis Trust library, 3,Whitehall Court, London, W1. James Lovelock is revered by some enviromentalists as a saint and Gunther Wachsmuth who came up with the original idea has been long forgotten.

It smacks or WP:OR / overinterpretation, so I moved it here (from beyond the refs...). I've never heard of GW; he doesn't have a wiki entry. googlegives a few results; they look wacky. William M. Connolley 23:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC).


 * OK - we've overlapped again :-) - while I was thinking you moved it here. It's from a wacky book see for a quote. Vsmith 23:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding that: in that case, I think this is nothing to do with Gaia, just a vague assertion of organism. William M. Connolley 10:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC).

Pronunciation
What is the correct pronunciation of his name? Is it Lovelock as in the word "love", or as in the word "long"? (Perhaps a stupid question, but I need to know in order to get the transliteration right for the Greek Wikipedia).--Toredid 09:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never heard it pronounced anyway other than "love", even by people who know him (in a professional capacity). And I've never heard him correct anyone on their pronounciation of it on the radio or television.  If that helps ...  --Plumbago 10:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that helps. Thank you! --Toredid 10:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft Sulfur Emissions
On par with his recent pro-nuclear statements Lovelock has proposed that aviation fuel should contain sulfur to increase global dimming via sulfur dioxide. --Michael C Price 06:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hacked paragraph
Just hacked the following out. It makes some good points, but it's rather POV, and it's written in an entirely encyclopaedic style (not that WP's the gold standard here!). Anyway, it could be reworked, so I've moved it here for now in case anyone wants to try. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "While the Gaia theory is important, and a good thing for non-scientists to be aware of, some of Dr Lovelock's Gaia books have been written in an extremely simplistic way, that don't educate any but the least knowledgeable of readers.A great deal has been made out of a very simple concept, and many fanciful conclusions have been jumped to by some, such as religious believers, with prior agendas that they wish to further.Gaia with its populist branding sits uneasily in the jargon filled scientific community, and is not really in the mainstream of climate debate.While Dr Lovelock has done much important work in his life, the baggage and tangents surrounding Gaia are somewhat of a distraction, that mean he isn't always taken seriously as a professionally qualified scientist.Dr Lovelock has helped increase awareness of environmental issues, and encouraged a younger generation of scientists to follow in his footsteps."


 * Be Aware or BEWARE ... Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge
 * Some of Dr Lovelock's Gaia books have been written in an extremely simplistic way that appeals to less knowledgeable readers.


 * While the Gaia theory is important, this simple concept generates fanciful conclusions by religious believers pursuing prior agendas. Gaia has a populist branding that doen't mesh with a jargon-filled scientific community and is not in the mainstream of climate debate.


 * Despite his previous important work, Dr Lovelock's baggage and tangents about Gaia are a distraction. Thus, he isn't always taken seriously as a professionally qualified scientist. But, his works increase awareness of environmental issues, and encourage the next generation of scientists to follow in his footsteps. --geoWIZard-Passports 01:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Written better, but still woefully POV, and not going back in. Sorry.  Cheers, --Plumbago 07:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with POV assessment ... In his recent book (The Revenge of Gaia), Lovelock cites a future historynovel (State of Fear) as an example of Forecasts for the Twenty-first Century ... The public is much more likely to be influenced by writers like Michael Crighton than they are by scientists.(p.48) --geoWIZard-Passports 14:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

CFC's
Didn't lovelock do some significant work on CFC's too? I don't see it mentioned anywhere in the article.Crimsone 20:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, nobody else added it, so I did. Crimsone (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

WTF is an "independent scientist"?
I know he likes to call himself that way, but I wonder if it's appropriate. He's either a scientist, or he's not.--Niczar 06:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Independent of any major scientific institution. Most scientists are associated with a university so it seems appropriate to say he's indy.—Pengo 10:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Indpendent scholar" is the term I've heard for professors/scholars without a university position. It's generlaly used, I believe. -Will Beback · † · 19:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In this case independent scholar would fit very well as their is no questioning he is a scholar opf the first order,SqueakBox 01:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why then listing his alma mater? Isnt he some sort of emeritus? And if not, why not? --85.125.140.110 (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing memetics category
I am removing the memetics category from this article since you learn no more about the article's contents from the category and v.v. Since so many things may be memes we should try to keep the category closely defined in order to remain useful. Hope you're okay with that. The link to meme would be enough I suggest. Facius 11:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits
I added the original note on the September 2007 address, since I felt it was important and interesting that Professor Lovelock had at least somewhat moderated his views on the particular subject. The note has been edited twice subsequently. I have no problem with the second edit, it toned down what I'd originally said but was a reasonable representation of the source. I felt that what I said was too, and after all I'd provided a link to the source so people could decide for themselves (and, of course, would have deserved to have my comment deleted forthwith if I hadn't), but the change of emphasis was not in itself unfair. The first edit did annoy me. The stated reason for it was to better reflect the source, but in fact it said exactly and precisely what I'd said, just in slightly different words. I felt this was a little rude, since there was nothing wrong with my word choice why override it? I'm asking because I'm curious, and because I'm new to adding to Wikipedia rather than just using it, so anxious to learn the rules. I didn't reverse the edit because that would probably have just started some silly back-and-forth, and after all my meaning hadn't been changed even slightly.

81.154.197.153 10:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it was my edit that was rude there. My apologies, I certainly didn't intend it to be.  My first change was to replace "resiled" - that was simply a style thing.  I judged that this wasn't a commonly understood word, and so replaced it with "retreated".  This may not be a better choice ("moderated" perhaps?), but I was concerned that many readers might not understand the point being made (this is only the second time I've ever seen the word "resiled"!).  My second change, as I recall, stemmed from my feeling that the added text was ambiguous when it said the Earth was in "no danger".  Some might read that as Lovelock suggesting that we have nothing to worry about when it comes to climate change.  The source is a bit clearer on what he meant by this.  I figured that adding "itself" made it clearer that Lovelock was talking about "the Earth" and not "us on the Earth", but a subsequent editor just went and did the right thing and totally clarified things using the source's text.  Anyway, I hope that this clears things up a bit.  And, again, my apologies for coming over all brusque.  Please don't let me put you off editing, go out there andbe bold with your edits!  Cheers, --Plumbago 12:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Apology fully accepted and your reasons understood, thanks. I'm not really that sensitive, I was just curious! To be honest, I hesitated over resiled, but reflected that it is a perfectly good word and might add to vocabularies. I know that sounds arrogant, but it's actually a Nero Wolfe reference.

81.154.197.153 17:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear Power
The last paragraph in the nuclear power section seems to give too much influence to Lovelock's detractor, when the consensus is somewhere in between. It should be concluded with another statement about the uncertainty of the use of plutonium from breeder reactors in nuclear weapons. See the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design#Plutonium-239 and links can be followed from there to a source. I believe this would be a more balanced ending. 67.172.223.95 02:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)John

Another link that may be helpful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium_239 67.172.223.95 02:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)John

"Lovelock's claim that nuclear power plants cannot be used for weapons production is false, irresponsible and dangerous. A typical nuclear power reactor produces about 300 kilograms of plutonium each year, enough for 30 nuclear weapons"
 * Right... and my ass makes enough carbon and nitrogen to create a hundred pound high explosive every year. Too bad for me it's in the form of digested food and not C4. Seriously, does this comment even belong here? Lovelock did NOT say that the plutonium cannot be used for weapons manufacture, only that it is very difficult, and he is right. 130.71.96.19 05:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The FoE "response" (it was published several months after Lovelock's remarks) does play a bit loose with the issue of the contamination of the plutonium produced.  However, it's original research to point this out in the article without sourcing it.  Could you look for a source to back this up please?  My guess is that there probably won't be one - I doubt Lovelock would bother replying to FoE's given that the point he was making referred to the intransigence of environmental groups on nuclear power.  Opening this up, would anyone more experienced care to comment on how best to deal with this sort of issue?  Usually, claims such as the FoE's are made by unreliable sources, but FoE (while almost certainly incorrect on this point) don't fall into this category.  Any tips?  --Plumbago 08:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ocean pipes
The article says: "Similar schemes to that proposed by Lovelock and Rapley are already being developed by commercial companies[20]."

The sentence makes it sound as if there is more than one commercial Ocean pipes development presently underway. But I couldn't find any discussion of the location and timing of such developments in the reference. Johnfos00:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed this misleading sentence now... Johnfos 21:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've restored the sentence since the referenced company is clearly involved in developing ocean pipes. While it hasn't gone ahead with the scheme yet, it's clear from the detail on the website that they've gone quite far with planning, and have already trialled their pipe scheme.  Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

POV tag
I've added a POV tag to the top of this article because it is not neutral. There is a pro-Lovelock bias here, which manifests in two ways. Firstly, there is a pushing of his ideas, and the ocean pipes discussion immediately above is an example of this. Secondly, it appears that no criticism which is made of Lovelock is allowed to stand, and the nuclear power section provides an example of this. This is how one paragraph originally looked:


 * On 30 May 2006, Lovelock told the Australian Lateline television program: "Modern nuclear power stations are useless for making bombs." In response, Dr. Jim Green, a nuclear campaigner, said: "Lovelock's claim that nuclear power plants cannot be used for weapons production is false, irresponsible and dangerous. A typical nuclear power reactor produces about 300 kilograms of plutonium each year, enough for 30 nuclear weapons."

Now it has been transformed into:


 * On 30 May 2006, Lovelock told the Australian Lateline television program: "Modern nuclear power stations are useless for making bombs". This is because the Plutonium-239 from a nuclear reactor power plant is contaminated with a significant amount of Pu-240, so it is not weapons-grade.  It is easier to enrichUranium than than to separate the Pu-240 from the Pu-239.


 * In response, Dr. Jim Green, a nuclear campaigner, said: "Lovelock's claim that nuclear power plants cannot be used for weapons production is false, irresponsible and dangerous. A typical nuclear power reactor produces about 300 kilograms of plutonium each year, enough for 30 nuclear weapons" . Technically however this is not a refutation of Lovelock's claim, as Lovelock did not deny that reactors produce plutonium, merely that it is in a form difficult to utilize for weapons production.

No references support the additional material which, as it stands, is just POV commentary. Johnfos(talk) 23:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Johnfos. This is just a quick response for now, I'll try to flesh this out later.


 * On the pipes point above, the article contains a series of critical sources about Lovelock's silly pipes scheme, including a follow-up letter that appeared in Nature. I restored and corrected the (sourced) sentence concerning the commercial company trying the pipes scheme because it's notable that the scheme is more than just, well, a pipe-dream - some (probably misguided) people are actually trying it in the real world.


 * Regarding the plutonium point, you're absolutely correct, the qualification to the FoE statement is still completely unsourced some time after I asked for sources for it. While it may be technically correct, it is original research to add this "analysis" here.  To this end, I've removed the statement.  I should have done this originally, but I wanted to give the editor who added it the opportunity to add a source.


 * Anyway, I hope this helps a bit. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Pu-240 bit is supported by the Pu-239 page; I've left a Q there William M. Connolley (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added appropriate and helpful (I think!) sources to the text (mostly derived from plutonium articles). Needless to say, I'm no expert, so someone giving them the once over would be helpful.  Cheers,--Plumbago (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Plumbago and William. Thanks for making some improvements. I'm removing the POV tag now...Johnfos (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Knighthood?
There is no mention of that he is knighted, but the Gaia article refers to him as "Sir James Lovelock". Explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by87.59.246.218 (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Balance : More Recent a convert to climate change
About 18 years ago James was part of the panel on BBC Radio 4's 'Any Questions'. In response to a question about the greatest threat to mankind I recall that he responded something thus "You can forget about climate change. That's much less of a concern.  The real threat is the Ozone Layer..." So he's a more recent convert to the cause and effect of man made greenhouse gases but the article here is prone to Lovelock worship and almost awards him guru status for foresight. He's a science writer and presents him self well in front of the media for profit but far from a thought leader. Could we please have some balance to this effect? —Precedingunsigned comment added by Paul Millsom (talk• contribs)


 * About 18 years ago the issue of ozone depletion was more prominent than that of -mediated climate change (the Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987), both within the scientific community and the news media, and it seems likely that Lovelock was simply presenting this view (he may, in fact, have been overplaying ozone slightly since, as the article already describes, he "missed the boat" on CFCs). As it happens, he discusses and climate change in his books Gaia (1979) and Ages of Gaia (1989).  Admittedly, in Gaia his views are more equivocal than now, and he states "we shall need to be vigilant" (pg. 113; 1987 OUP edition), and notes that the magnitude of climate change is uncertain (because of, among other things, global dimming).  That his views have evolved since then is unsurprising given that the scientific community itself has moved on (though scientists likeJames Hansen were already flagging this up in the 1980s).  Anyway, his contributions to science (as is noted in the article) have not dealt specifically with climate change, so it's not clear how the article should be changed to reflect your view.  Can you be more specific please?  Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"Fairly reliable" predictions?
"His predictions are fairly reliable, as in 1965 Shell Oil polled some scientists on what the world will be like in the year 2000. He predicted that there would be significant environmental changes affecting the planet."

If the prediction was really as vague as "significant environmental changes", this doesn't seem to warrant a mention that "his predictions are fairly reliable"? --SamuliK (talk) 08:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I've removed the sentence.  It was unsourced too.  --Plumbago (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)