The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning
Where to buy The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning books online?
Product Description
Celebrities drive hybrids, Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize, and supermarkets carry no end of so-called green products. And yet the environmental crisis is only getting worse. In The Vanishing Face of Gaia, the eminent scientist James Lovelock argues that the planet is lurching ever closer to a stable hot state – and much more quickly than most specialists reflect. There is nothing humans can do to back the process; the planet is simply too overpopulated to halt its own destruction by greenhouse gases. In order to survive, mankind must start preparing now for life on a radically changed planet. The meliorist approach outlined in the Kyoto Treaty must be abandoned in favor of nuclear energy and aggressive agricultural development on the tiny areas of planet that will remain arable. A reluctant jeremiad from one of the environmental movements elder statesmen, The Vanishing Face of Gaia offers an essential wake-up call for the human race.
Buy Cheap The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning Online
Related posts:
Disclaimer: I have not read nor have I bought this book, but I did read a review about it presumably written and authorized by its leader and publishers since it was in a commercial publication promoting the sale of the book.
This is really unrelated to this book, but I can’t wait for the pessimists to latch on to the fact that the oceans never used to be “salt water,” it was only after years of rain washing the salt from the land into the oceans that the oceans became “salt water” as a replacement for of “fresh water.”
Now, I’m sure people back then would have predicted that life could not exist in “salt water” as opposed to “fresh water” had they been around to measure, record, and then “extrapolate” this process, and they would have been right to an extent–at that time–but they would have been and were incorrect in the long-run, weren’t they?
Remember Robert Malthus? He is in the ash heap and dustbin of history, isn’t he, along with Nikita Khrushchev and so many additional pessimists of one kind or another? Malthus was incorrect, yet people have forgotten about him precisely because he was incorrect, but that is precisely why they should remember him and all the additional modern day Luddites (Again, I explicitly disclaim any reference to leader and this book.)
Remember Robert Malthus–not because he was right, but because he was incorrect.
As a replacement for, the oceans became salt water, but life in the oceans did not die out at all–it flourished, it evolved, it adapted, the way it permanently has, permanently does, and permanently will, and now we have both salt water and fresh water, and life continues and flourishes in both.
Anyone heard from an leader named Ravi Batra lately? He wrote a very well loved book back in about 1988, and people should learn some lessons not just from that book, but from its popularity at the time. Readers can learn some lessons about themselves from that book and its popularity at the time, not just from the leader and the book itself.
No matter what the meadow is, science, economics, whatever, pessimism sells because all people have to do to “consume” pessimism is sit back and do nothing–quit, whereas optimism demands action, rather than mere words, of persons who judge in it. Persons who judge it is OK to quit are permanently looking for rationalizations to do so simply because it is much simpler to do nothing and make no effort whatsoever to turn their pessimistic “beliefs” into “actions.” While they may avoid being blamed for failures by not acting, they also cannot be allowed to take credit and responsibility for the successes of others who did act.
Optimism requires and demands action of persons who judge in it and pessimism does not, which is largely why pessimism from others sells so much more easily and is so much more well loved than optimism. If you judge in optimism, you have to do something, you have to act in times of crises. If you judge in pessimism, you do not. If you are a worrywart, you do not have to do anything or take any actions in times of crises because that is what your belief system is all about–failure is inevitable, so why even bother to try?
But there is a huge difference between failing and quitting. It is OK to fail, but it is not OK to quit. One is stable; one is temporary, and that is the only difference between the two, and the difference comes down to one between pessimism and optimism. The worrywart sees failure as a stable state, so the worrywart quits–in fact, doesn’t even try. The optimist sees failure as a temporary state, so the optimist permanently tries, and permanently keeps trying, permanently perseveres in spite of all failure because the optimist knows that this is the right scenery of success–not a destination, not an end state, but the act and nonstop actions of perseverance. In this sense, the optimist realizes and sees that greater the failure, the greater is the opportunity for success.
Success is not a noun, but a verb. You are the noun, and your actions, your “verbs,” are your successes, and this is why the ancient adage goes: “We judge ourselves by our thoughts while others judge us by our actions” and “Actions speak louder than words.” Failing to act says more than words ever could.
A person can judge and say anything they want to about themselves, but your actions, or failures to act, speak louder than words about you and your beliefs.
When faced with the choice of being pessimists who do nothing and in so doing can become “free riders” on the backs of the optimists of the world, most people will become free riders simply because it is simpler to do and they can try to avoid responsibility and blame when things do go incorrect by not acting, but that is not permanently the case, and it is certainly the case that they cannot be allowed to take credit for the actions of optimists when things really do work out, as the optimists permanently believed they would.
If you question yourself if you have been defeated and have failed, you will be right no matter how you answer.
Reader’s Rating: 3 / 5
This book reads like a diner table conversation – appealing and thought provoking, but not well researched. It doesn’t follow the scientific method, and hence, doesn’t make a convincing argument.
i) The leader claims that the Planet has several stable states – and the transition from one to the additional can be dramatic.
This is a testable hypothesis. You could look at ice core samples and see if temperature does have distinct preferred states. The leader makes no effort to test this hypothesis.
ii) The leader argues that the Planet is a feedback system, as are living things. Hence, the Planet behaves like a living thing.
Well, cars, houses, toasters are also feedback systems. By this argument, they too behave like living things. I don’t see how viewing my toaster as a living being helps me to know how the Planet works.
iii) The leader also notes that the Planet has many feedback systems – some help to stabilize temperature, some destabilize it. Humans are changing how the Planet operates.
A reasonable conclusion would be to identify these feedback mechanisms, note which ones are destabilizing and which are stabilizing, and note how human activity is distressing them.
The leader does this piecemeal – noting that haze helps to cool the planet in the fleeting term while melting ice caps destabilize temperature, etc. I would have preferred a more systematic analysis where hypothesis are place forwards and tested in building this argument.
The leader might be right – but this text needs to follow the scientific method to be more compelling.
Reader’s Rating: 2 / 5
This book is nothing more than a commercial for nuclear power. It contains facts that can be easily proven untrue: Lovelock’s claims that nuclear power does not require government subsidies are incorrect, as you can learn from a five second websearch (my first hit showed that the U.S. government alone has spent 100 BILLION dollars in the past half century subsidizing nuclear power plants.)
Lovelock also is derisive of any additional alternative power source save nukes and never even mentions conservation and/or rationing of remaining oil stocks as possible alternatives.
I establish this book a total waste of money. Worse yet, Lovelock’s cheerleading for nuclear power and unsupported statements about its safety and cheapness made me really doubt the accuracy and reliability of his previous books.
I do not recommend this book.
Reader’s Rating: 1 / 5
Book really says everthing is ok and dont do anything but let huge buisness do what they will
just sit home somehow preparing for guests when the world ends
I can get that message from CNN
If i wanted to waste my time i would have bought a steven milloy book
Reader’s Rating: 1 / 5
I do not doubt Lovelock’s scientific credentials. Moreover, his thought about the self-regulating planet where the living organisms regulate the climate a.k.a. Gaia theory makes sense and I agree with it. His theory should certainly should be taken into account in the developing climate science. His science seems perfectly adequate but the thing that I do not know is why he needed to write the same book again when he didn’t have anything new to say. He could have written a magazine article as a replacement for. Perhaps, he could have spared a few dozen tons of paper. As we know paper is made from trees and his book is not printed on recycled paper indeed! The Vanishing Face of Gaia and the Revenge of Gaia is basically the same book. The ex- one features new rants that tend to show how self-righteous its leader is.
His argument, factually repeated from the Revenge of Gaia, is perhaps about a third of the book, the rest of its more or less rubbish, some unedited thoughts rumbling about the excellent ancient times when the country side was so pure and there were so few people and now all these people are multiplying and Malthus was so right and world is overpopulating and thank god that England will be safe heaven to survive that fantastic global warming apocalypse. Halleluiah! Despite of his scientific credentials, clearly Mr. Lovelock lacks any deeper knowledge on social science, let alone development, and his Eurocentric view of the world is simply pathetic. Just like his view that all we need is Nuclear power to solve all our energy problems and more science to solve all the problems that science has made. Rumor has it that, Mr. Lovelock’s views are very limited and he still mournful the remnants of the once Fantastic British empire.
Reader’s Rating: 2 / 5