Eschatology and Global Warming

All explained in Searching for the Catastrophe Signal by Bernie Lewin. The story is told in the words of the major IPCC actors, interviewed by Lewin and quite willing to explain it all.

 

I doubt if many climate scientists are believers in biblical end times and that is true for the majority of people like me who
have confidence in the scientific evidence for AGW and the real threat to humans if we continue on the path that we are on.
People who are rational and reject the nonsense of biblical end times don't need to replace it with anything.

The book by Bernie Lewin is one I know little about and have no interest in reading. It is probably making him rich. It is irrelevant
unless it presents scientific evidence that debunks the case for AGW. Even if the IPCC was searching for a "catastrophic signaL",
whatever that is, for some ulterior motive, the evidence or signal that they were expecting to find has been found.

 

Now you did her homework for her.

 

Oh I bet science has an ideal temperature. But this planet is below that ideal temperature.

We know due to the massive formations of ICE globally. Glaciers on continents, on Greenland, the Arctic and Antarctic.

 

Not my homework - you make the claim you validate it

 

Got a link to current observations oh! Heatwave affected one? Must be uncomfortable over there especially since it is not even officially summer yet

 

Do yourself a huge favor. For perhaps 12 months, assume you are wrong and we are correct. See if our evidence draws you in where you begin to oppose the alarmists. Earth will still go on even if you later flip flop back to your present position.
Earth is in no danger of burning to a crisp nor melting.

 

Hmmm another book that I cannot access to review. What was the methodology used in the “interviews”. What selection criteria was used? What involvement did the participants have in the IPCC process - were they contributing authors or lead authors? Has the book undergone any form of external validation?

 

We commit an error in logic when we try to equate AGW advocacy/movement with scientific research. To conflate is to combine 2 or more ideas into one
and here we have a suggestion that if AGW advocates (ordinary concerned citizens) are irrational, then the climate scientists must be irrational.
Those advocates like Greta and Jane Fonda can be lunatics but the scientists can be the most rational people in the world.
I don't mean to disparage Greta and Jane but some people get much more emotional about topics than others.

 

I have read your dribbling now for a long long time. I do not see you proving anything. Rather you attempt the old dodge of but but but the IPCC.

 

Do YOURSELF a huge favour - read the science and do not assume it is wrong. The science that is guiding the international agreements and policies throughout the world - after all you have to know the battlefield before engaging the enemy

 

Well. That is the ultimate systematic review - anytime you want to prove it wrong please feel free to do so. I can almost guarantee there is a Nobel Prise waiting for anyone who does so

 

Try using Amazon.com
https://www.amazon.com/product-revi...r&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar
From the United States

Don B
5.0 out of 5 stars Anyone who is interested in why there is such groupthink ...
Reviewed in the United States on March 5, 2018
Verified Purchase
Anyone who is interested in why there is such groupthink in climate activism needs to read this book. The description of the years leading up to the formation of the UN's IPCC, which is a lobbying rather than a scientific body, and the early years of that activist organization, is something which needs to be understood.
8 people found this helpful

 

Can I read it without paying? No?

tell you what - lets take this to the moderators and ask them if they feel it is fair to link to material that requires payment

 

Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black: "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"

Cannot the same thing be said about Jack Hays and a few others who ignore the best scientific evidence, latch on to the fringe science and pseudoscience,
spend a countless amount time on sparsely populated forums with arrogant pride in their cause and never admit to making a mistake.

 

Ahem. There is no suggestion of belief in biblical end times. Rather, the yearning for such belief has yielded in our secular age a belief in climate catastrophe.
As for Lewin, since his book is based on interviews with the principal scientists involved, and the story is told in their own words, I suggest you are missing an opportunity to learn.

 

I believe you may recognize some names.
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.

 

Stop panicking.

 

I recall how it was that he did not mention this and suddenly Al Gore shows up with his hair on fire, alarms going full blast telling us to get ready for a NY City going under water.

It has not happened. Gore got pretty rich at the alarming game.

 

They have nothing to lose by just trying out for size, using our arguments and seeing who comes closest to reality.
We propose the world knocks off the alarmism. They propose it get more urgent.
I see no evidence they are correct.

 

Ahhhh! An Ad Hom how sweet!

 

Fine

point out the “alarmism” in any of the IPCC reports and I will help you draft a letter to the UN stating objections

 

Since I am unable to critique the methodology utilised in this book let us look at what information IS available

So not a climatologist or even a psychologist, doesn’t seem to even have credentials in journalism which one would expect if you were doing interviews - themselves notorious for bias

wait there is more

Seems he also has not read the IPCC reports if he believes ther is no evidence

https://www.desmog.com/bernie-lewin/#s4

So how about the book - did it have any form of editorial review?

Seems like the answer to that is a big NO

 

You have not answered my question

What measures did Lewin take to minimise bias in his interviews?

 

You are free to bury your head in the sand if you wish. As I already pointed out, it is based on interviews with the IPCC principals, and tells the story largely in their own words.