What I know Catty is that the web site you link to is selective in what it repeats of the interview, using what it prefers people to read. The full original is here on MSN: LINK
James Lovelock has always walked on the wild side. He's passionate about Earth and he wrote his books in a dramatic style to make sure they got attention because he was so concerned by the increasing body of evidence that humans were destroying the stability of the oceans and atmosphere. That's why he used his Gaia theory and risked being accused of saying the Earth was a god or goddess - which many did accuse him off, not fully understanding what he was trying to achieve. But he's still a scientist and if a scientist sees the latest sound evidence is supporting something different to his present ideas he will change them - which is a lot more than the climate change deniers will do.
A lot of the original interview isn't repeated in the web site you quote. For instance "He [Lovelock] said he still thought that climate change was happening, but that its effects would be felt farther in the future than he previously thought. `We will have global warming, but it’s been deferred a bit,' Lovelock said." Also "He said human-caused carbon dioxide emissions were driving an increase in the global temperature...".
MSN quoted Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the UK Meterological Office Hadley Centre as agreeing Lovelock had been "too alarmist with claims about people having to live in the Arctic by 2100" and that the rate of warming in recent years had been less than expected by the climate models. It goes on: "However, Stott said this was a short-term trend that could be within the natural range of variation and it would need to continue for another 10 years or so before it could be considered evidence that something was missing from climate models. Stott said temperature records and other observations were `broadly speaking continuing to pan out' with what was expected." Stott also said of Lovelock “I like the fact he’s provocative and provokes people to think about these things”.
Thanks for posting the link Catty - there's nowt like open debate!