• 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

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I have long been intrigued by the incongruity of anthropogenic global warming's surprisingly thin evidence base and the adamancy of its advocates. Their use of the term "denier" to describe those skeptical of AGW suggests a state of mind outside that commonly associated with scientific inquiry. I was recently struck by a juxtaposition which may explain (at least in part) this phenomenon.

One side is a book I first encountered fifty years ago, The Pursuit of the Millennium by Norman Cohn. The other is a new (2017) book, Searching for the Catastrophe Signal by Bernie Lewin. There is a long tradition of millenarian thought in western civilization, and it's not surprising that chiliastic yearning has survived the decline in formal religious practice in the 20th and 21st centuries. This may be the key to understanding the psychology of AGW advocacy. Replace the biblical "end times" with a postulated hothouse Earth and present a millennium of renewable, carbon-free energy sources, and it all fits together pretty snugly.

Nothing but absolute faith in the righteousness of their cause can really explain the maneuvers of AGW advocates in the early IPCC. Even more to the point is their continuing pride in those maneuvers -- several of them are among Lewin's most important sources.

[h=3]The Pursuit of the Millennium - Norman Cohn - Oxford University Press[/h]https://global.oup.com/academic/.../the-pursuit-of-the-millennium-9780195004564




May 15, 1970 - The end of the millennium has always held the world in fear of earthquakes, plague, and the catastrophic destruction of the world. At the dawn ...

[h=3]Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of ... - Google Books[/h]https://books.google.com/books/about/Searching_for_the_Catastrophe_Signal.html?id...

Nov 21, 2017 - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the IPCC - is the global authority on climate science and behind some of the most important ...
 
From the Oxford link:

". . . The only overall study of medieval millenarian movements, The Pursuit of the Millennium offers an excellent interpretation of how, again and again, in situations of anxiety and unrest, traditional beliefs come to serve as vehicles for social aspirations and animosities."
 
Yawn. More denial thinly disguised as academic study. You're not fooling anyone, Jack.

Bernie Lewin

Credentials

B.A., Social Science, La Trobe University (1990)

Graduate Diploma, Information Management, RMIT (1997)

Background

Bernie Lewin describes himself as a “historian of science” from Melbourne, Australia, and the author of climate disinformation blog, Enthusiasm, Scepticism, Science. The blog starts from the premise that “there is insufficient evidence to make the claim that CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic global warming”.

Lewin has a bachelor’s degree in social science, and a graduate diploma in information management, according to his LinkedIn profile. On his blog’s About page, he confesses that he is “not an academic”.

Lewin occasionally contributes content criticising climate science to disinformation campaign group the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). He is the author of the book “Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”, published by the GWPF at the end of 2017. The book argues that the IPCC was created to deliver a “catastrophe signal” that “policy elites” needed to implement a climate change treaty.

Lewin has also authored a paper on the work of climatologist Hubert Lamb for the GWPF, arguing that he was “an early climate skeptic”. He has also contributed to climate science denial blog, Watts Up With That.
Click to expand...

Bernie Lewin
 
Surface Detail said:
Yawn. More denial thinly disguised as academic study. You're not fooling anyone, Jack.



Bernie Lewin
Click to expand...

Ben Santer, John Houghton, Tom Wigley, John Mitchell and Tim Barnett are among his main sources. I suggest you step back and learn a little about this before you embarrass yourself further.
 
Last edited:
Surface Detail said:
Yawn. More denial thinly disguised as academic study. You're not fooling anyone, Jack.
Click to expand...

Jack seems to going further than the Koch propaganda. It could be the Kochs are trying a new tactic, or I goofed, and there's another player behind some recent propaganda.
 
Jack Hays said:
Ben Santer, John Houghton, Tom Wigley, John Mitchell and Tim Barnett are among his main sources. I suggest you step back and learn a little about this before you embarrass yourself further.
Click to expand...

Don't be so naive. It doesn't matter who your sources are if you don't have the scientific expertise needed to understand them; you've demonstrated that often enough yourself. Adding a bunch of famous names to the end of a pile of gibberish doesn't magically turn it into something worth of consideration!
 
Jack Hays said:
Nothing but absolute faith in the righteousness of their cause can really explain the maneuvers of AGW advocates in the early IPCC. Even more to the point is their continuing pride in those maneuvers -- several of them are among Lewin's most important sources.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is faith that the science is settled. That other significant variables need not be looked at any longer.

Faith...

Belief...

It appears the religion of AGW replaces that lost part in their souls, where spiritual religion belongs.
 
Surface Detail said:
Don't be so naive. It doesn't matter who your sources are if you don't have the scientific expertise needed to understand them; you've demonstrated that often enough yourself. Adding a bunch of famous names to the end of a pile of gibberish doesn't magically turn it into something worth of consideration!
Click to expand...

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.
 
late said:
Jack seems to going further than the Koch propaganda. It could be the Kochs are trying a new tactic, or I goofed, and there's another player behind some recent propaganda.
Click to expand...

Or maybe you just have no idea what you're talking about, and the perspective in this thread frightens you.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, there is faith that the science is settled. That other significant variables need not be looked at any longer.

Faith...

Belief...

It appears the religion of AGW replaces that lost part in their souls, where spiritual religion belongs.
Click to expand...

Religion of a particular genre: eschatology.
 
The thread reasoning, if you can call it that, is that the worse global warming gets, the more we should ignore it because if things get real bad, we are looking at the type of apocalypse preached by bible thumpers and, if you don't like bible thumpers, then you shouldn't like environmentalists.
 
RobertU said:
The thread reasoning, if you can call it that, is that the worse global warming gets, the more we should ignore it because if things get real bad, we are looking at the type of apocalypse preached by bible thumpers and, if you don't like bible thumpers, then you shouldn't like environmentalists.
Click to expand...

It would be hard to imagine anyone missing the point more completely. Perhaps you are trying to misdirect?
 
Jack Hays said:
It would be hard to imagine anyone missing the point more completely. Perhaps you are trying to misdirect?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

Lincoln was most eloquent and insightful, and since he was considering a human consequence of human actions, maybe he was onto something.

IMHO the universe is indifferent to us. AGW advocates are not necessarily religious, but they are responding to yearnings often expressed religiously in the past. That is why they (and you, perhaps) are very ready to see moral failing and the hope of redemption in the climate context.
 
Jack Hays said:
Lincoln was most eloquent and insightful, and since he was considering a human consequence of human actions, maybe he was onto something.

IMHO the universe is indifferent to us. AGW advocates are not necessarily religious, but they are responding to yearnings often expressed religiously in the past. That is why they (and you, perhaps) are very ready to see moral failing and the hope of redemption in the climate context.
Click to expand...

I see moral failing. Redemption? Not so much.
 
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...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Why wouldn't they be - so far, they consider themselves successful, so why not be happy? A few already very wealthy people stand to make billions of dollars thanks to "doomsday" propaganda, and when their predictions fail to occur - and those have been plentifully ongoing - those controversies can just be ignored OR changed to mean something else. As an example, CO2 has been shown to benefit forests and other plant life by helping them grow and get stronger, not destroy them which would result in barren dead landscapes as they previously forecast! Interesting ..... :shrug:
 
Last edited:
polgara said:
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Why wouldn't they be - so far, they consider themselves successful, so why not be happy? A few already very wealthy people stand to make billions of dollars thanks to "doomsday" propaganda, and when their predictions fail to occur - and those have been plentiful - those controversies can just be ignored or changed to mean something else. As an example, CO2 has been shown to benefit forests and other plant life by helping them grow and get stronger, not destroy them which would result in barren dead landscapes as they previously forecast! Interesting ..... :shrug:
Click to expand...

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

Yes, they have the satisfaction of having gotten away with it, and for a cause they really believe in.
 
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...

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.
 
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...

Call as many names as you like. Fact is the sources of this story are leaders of the AGW "consensus." There's no smearing or discrediting. There is credit-taking, in their own words. They acted in pursuit of the millennium.
 
Jack Hays said:
Call as many names as you like. Fact is the sources of this story are leaders of the AGW "consensus." There's no smearing or discrediting. There is credit-taking, in their own words. They acted in pursuit of the millennium.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. As I already pointed out, Bernie Lewin, the author of the second book you cited, is not a physical scientist, let alone a "leader of the AGW consensus". He is a social scientist, blogger and well-known purveyor of climate change disinformation.
 
Surface Detail said:
Nonsense. As I already pointed out, Bernie Lewin, the author of the second book you cited, is not a physical scientist, let alone a "leader of the AGW consensus". He is a social scientist, blogger and well-known purveyor of climate change disinformation.
Click to expand...

I was speaking of his sources, whom I named, and who all cooperated with him and are happy with the result. So stop parading your ignorance. I'm embarrassed for you.
 
Jack Hays said:
I was speaking of his sources, whom I named, and who all cooperated with him and are happy with the result. So stop parading your ignorance. I'm embarrassed for you.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could provide some evidence that they "cooperated with him and are happy with the result"? Sounds like bollocks to me. Perhaps you could also say who you actually mean, i.e. the sources for Lewin's book, rather than the sources for the "story", which I naturally assumed to be your initial post.
 
Surface Detail said:
Perhaps you could provide some evidence that they "cooperated with him and are happy with the result"? Sounds like bollocks to me. Perhaps you could also say who you actually mean, i.e. the sources for Lewin's book, rather than the sources for the "story", which I naturally assumed to be your initial post.
Click to expand...

The sources I named are the sources for Lewin's book, as I said and you apparently ignored.

"Bernie Lewin has written an important new book:
SEARCHING FOR THE CATASTROPHE SIGNAL:The Origins of The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The importance of this book is reflected in its acknowledgements, in context of assistance and contributions from early leaders and participants in the IPCC:
This book would not have been possible without the documents obtained via Mike MacCracken and John Zillman. Their abiding interest in a true and accurate presentation of the facts prevented my research from being led astray. 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. . . ."
Manufacturing consensus: the early history of the IPCC

Posted on January 3, 2018 by curryja | 385 comments
by Judith Curry Short summary: scientists sought political relevance and allowed policy makers to put a big thumb on the scale of the scientific assessment of the attribution of climate change.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
The sources I named are the sources for Lewin's book, as I said and you apparently ignored.

"Bernie Lewin has written an important new book:
SEARCHING FOR THE CATASTROPHE SIGNAL:The Origins of The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The importance of this book is reflected in its acknowledgements, in context of assistance and contributions from early leaders and participants in the IPCC:
This book would not have been possible without the documents obtained via Mike MacCracken and John Zillman. Their abiding interest in a true and accurate presentation of the facts prevented my research from being led astray. 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. . . ."
Manufacturing consensus: the early history of the IPCC

Posted on January 3, 2018 by curryja | 385 comments
by Judith Curry Short summary: scientists sought political relevance and allowed policy makers to put a big thumb on the scale of the scientific assessment of the attribution of climate change.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom