• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Eschatology and Global Warming

Surface Detail said:
Yes, I know who the sources are for Lewin's book. I was saying that you should be more specific about which sources you mean - that wasn't clear what you meant by "story". You're a bit slow tonight, Jack!

Anyway, I'm still waiting for some evidence to support your claim that the sources were "happy with the result" of Lewin's work.
Click to expand...

The "story" is the account in Lewin's book.
All consented to be named in the book's acknowledgements. None has complained he was misquoted or misrepresented. There has been no publication anywhere of a rebuttal of any kind. They are proud of what they did.
 
Jack Hays said:
The "story" is the account in Lewin's book.
All consented to be named in the book's acknowledgements. None has complained he was misquoted or misrepresented. There has been no publication anywhere of a rebuttal of any kind. They are proud of what they did.
Click to expand...

So you are interpreting your inability to find any opinion that they may have voiced on the book as meaning that they are "happy with the result". A little presumptuous, don't you think? Perhaps they are simply unaware of Lewin's book.
 
Surface Detail said:
So you are interpreting your inability to find any opinion that they may have voiced on the book as meaning that they are "happy with the result". A little presumptuous, don't you think? Perhaps they are simply unaware of Lewin's book.
Click to expand...

They contributed to it and consented to be named in the acknowledgements. Are you being deliberately obtuse?
 
Jack Hays said:
They contributed to it and consented to be named in the acknowledgements. Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Click to expand...

They contributed to it? Really? Then why is Bernie Lewin the only listed author? And I'm still waiting for the evidence that his sources were "happy with the result".
 
Surface Detail said:
No, you have provided nothing.
Click to expand...

From the acknowledgements:

"Many of those who participated in the events here described gave generously of their time in responding to my enquiries, they include Ben Santer, Tim Barnett, Tom Wigley, John Houghton, Fred Singer, John Mitchell, Pat Michaels . . . and many more. . . ."
 
Jack Hays said:
From the acknowledgements:

"Many of those who participated in the events here described gave generously of their time in responding to my enquiries, they include Ben Santer, Tim Barnett, Tom Wigley, John Houghton, Fred Singer, John Mitchell, Pat Michaels . . . and many more. . . ."
Click to expand...

You seem to have some problems with English comprehension, Jack. This is a claim by Lewin that these people answered his questions. It does not in any way imply that they were "happy with the results" or, indeed, that they were even aware that he was writing a book.
 
Surface Detail said:
You seem to have some problems with English comprehension, Jack. This is a claim by Lewin that these people answered his questions. It does not in any way imply that they were "happy with the results" or, indeed, that they were even aware that he was writing a book.
Click to expand...

I try to avoid this sort of thing, but that is a remarkably stupid comment. They were contacted by a writer, took the time to answer his questions, and were named in the book's acknowledgements. It would be customary for them to have received complimentary copies of the book. Regardless, they are people with high profiles in their fields and easy media access. If any were unhappy, it would be known.
 
Jack Hays said:
I try to avoid this sort of thing, but that is a remarkably stupid comment. They were contacted by a writer, took the time to answer his questions, and were named in the book's acknowledgements. It would be customary for them to have received complimentary copies of the book. Regardless, they are people with high profiles in their fields and easy media access. If any were unhappy, it would be known.
Click to expand...

All pure supposition on your part. You have provided no evidence at all to support your claim that the sources were happy with, or even aware of, Lewin's book. Where are the glowing endorsements, the recommendations? It's all just your usual :bs
 
Surface Detail said:
All pure supposition on your part. You have provided no evidence at all to support your claim that the sources were happy with, or even aware of, Lewin's book. Where are the glowing endorsements, the recommendations? It's all just your usual :bs
Click to expand...

Quite silly.
 
Jack Hays said:
You're just afraid. Too bad. You're the one who will ultimately suffer most from that.
It's primarily a story of scientists rather than science, and the "famous names" are the ones telling the story. And they all seem to be happy with the result.
Click to expand...

If only that were the case.

Very sadly this bad science has and will continue to make millions die as a result of bad public policy based on bad science.
 
RobertU said:
Even if you accept the hypothesis that environmentalists are looking at things from a "religious" perspective, that doesn't mean they are wrong. Abraham Lincoln suggested that the civil war, a mini-apocalypse of sorts, was God's punishment for slavery. Are you absolutely sure he was wrong? Perhaps global warming is both the logical result AND divine punishment for our greed and wretched excess of materialism.
Click to expand...

It does not make them wrong but it means that scientific arguments don't get through to them and you.

This is, I feel, why the debate between the skpeticcs and the alarmists is so lacking in any movement on either side. Nobody is talking the same language. My numbers will not shake your faith.
 
Surface Detail said:
It always is about the scientists rather than the science for AGW deniers. They know that they cannot argue against the actual facts, so they concentrate their efforts on smearing and discrediting those behind the science. Your anti-science propaganda is very transparent, Jack.
Click to expand...

It is you who calls me denier when I have said something you cannot refute.
 
Surface Detail said:
All pure supposition on your part. You have provided no evidence at all to support your claim that the sources were happy with, or even aware of, Lewin's book. Where are the glowing endorsements, the recommendations? It's all just your usual :bs
Click to expand...

Who is in denial of the real world?
 
Jack Hays said:
Or maybe you just have no idea what you're talking about, and the perspective in this thread frightens you.
Click to expand...

I can remember when Koch employees were getting thrown out of old folks homes for bothering retired scientists.

Disgust isn't fear.
 
From the Google Books OP link:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the IPCC - is the global authority on climate science and behind some of the most important policy changes in the history of industrial society. It is therefore probably the most influential scientific body in the world. Yet the surprising story of how it came to prominence is little known. Its origins can be traced back to earlier panics over the effects of supersonic transportation and ozone layer depletion, which taught political elites that science-based scares could be powerful drivers of policy action. It was as an authority fit to deliver the required evidence on climate change that the IPCC came into being. However, in the rush towards a climate treaty, IPCC scientists continued to report the evidence of manmade climate change was scarce and that confirmation of a manmade effect should not be expected for decades. Without a "catastrophe signal" that could justify a policy response, the panel faced its imminent demise."
 
Today I received my copy of Searching for the Catastrophe Signal. There are some remarkable quotes in it. I will start sharing them shortly.
 
Jack Hays said:
Today I received my copy of Searching for the Catastrophe Signal. There are some remarkable quotes in it. I will start sharing them shortly.
Click to expand...

Well, it will certainly provide some comic relief.

At least somebody bought a copy.
 
In pursuit of the millennium. . . .

Tim Barnett, in 1995 in "Estimates of Low Frequency Natural Variability in Near-Surface Air Temperature," wrote:

". . . All these facts make it difficult to say if observe spatial changes in climate are "normal" or due to anthropogenic effects. One or both of these model flaws [in spatial distribution and understated variability] might bias the results of an objective detection study and lead us to believe confidently that an anthropogenic signal has been found when, in fact, that may not be the case. . . ."

He concludes:

"Our results should serve as a warning to those anxious rigorously to pursue the detection of anthropogenic effects in observed climate data. The spectrum of natural variability against which detection claims, positive or negative, are made is not well-known and apparently not well represented in early CGCM [model] control runs."

Quoted in Searching for the Catastrophe Signal by Bernie Lewin, pp. 276-277.
 
And so Ben Santer, in his Chapter Eight draft, wrote:

". . . no study to date has both detected a significant climate change and positively attributed all or part of that change to anthropogenic causes."

Quoted in Searching for the Catastrophe Signal by Bernie Lewin, p. 277.
 
Jack Hays said:
In pursuit of the millennium. . . .

Tim Barnett, in 1995 in "Estimates of Low Frequency Natural Variability in Near-Surface Air Temperature," wrote:

". . . All these facts make it difficult to say if observe spatial changes in climate are "normal" or due to anthropogenic effects. One or both of these model flaws [in spatial distribution and understated variability] might bias the results of an objective detection study and lead us to believe confidently that an anthropogenic signal has been found when, in fact, that may not be the case. . . ."

He concludes:

"Our results should serve as a warning to those anxious rigorously to pursue the detection of anthropogenic effects in observed climate data. The spectrum of natural variability against which detection claims, positive or negative, are made is not well-known and apparently not well represented in early CGCM [model] control runs."

Quoted in Searching for the Catastrophe Signal by Bernie Lewin, pp. 276-277.
Click to expand...

Rip roaring bouncing kind of holiday read is it?
 
Only 36% of scientists believe in the man made global warming doomsday?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...ptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#70c3ca6b4c7c


It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom