Talk:James Lovelock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

James Lovelock is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

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? PeterLean 10:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Percy Spencer discovered that radar emissions can cook food. His work led to his company, Raytheon, developing a microwave 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)

Contents 1 Mass extinction 2 Gunther Wachsmuth 3 Pronunciation 4 Aircraft Sulfur Emissions 5 Hacked paragraph

[edit] 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 take http://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. Connolley 17:32, 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 Anthropocene experiment (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. Unlike James' blog, I'm reluctant to cast Lovelock into the same pit of insanity that seems to have claimed David Bellamy. --Plumbago 09:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. google gives 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 [1] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 history novel (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)