james lovelock is a pure science researcher (a rare thing these days). history has shown that we should listen to him
WTF is a 'pure science researcher'? And how is it better than some other underpaid bloke in a univerity publishing peer reviewed research rather than randomly spouting stuff from his farm in Cornwall?
If you throw a dice there's a 1in6 chance of getting a 6. To throw it six times and get six sixes is a 1in46656 chance. But if you threw 46656 dice six times and looked at the one that threw six sixes (ignore the statistical falacy there, they could all roll sixes all the time), if you were to roll it a seventh time would you take the answer as six regardles of what it was? Of course not. Just because it was right last time doesn't mean it'll be right again.
As the article said, plenty of people predict plenty of things, some turn out to be correct. Just because they make him sound like the science equivelent of the A-Team, a Maverick out to save the day, doesn't mean he's right.