This is a surprise. Professor Mike Hulme of the University of East Anglia suggests that the “I.P.C.C. has run its course”. I agree with him. We really need to remove a wholly political organization, the United Nations, from science.
Republished from New York Times Reporter Andrew Revkin’s Dot Earth:
Dot Earth: Insights from Mike Hulme at the University of East Anglia, which was the source of the disclosed files. Hulme, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia and author of “ Why We Disagree About Climate Change,” has weighed in with these thoughts about the significance of the leaked files and emails. In November 2009, Hulme was listed as “the 10th most cited author in the world in the field of climate change, between 1999 and 2009. (ScienceWatch, Nov/Dec 2009, see Table 2).
Hulme Key Excerpt:
[Upcoming UN climate conference in Copenhagen] “is about raw politics, not about the politics of science. […] It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science. It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production – just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.
Full Hulme Statement:
The key lesson to be learned is that not only must scientific knowledge about climate change be publicly owned — the I.P.C.C. does a fairly good job of this according to its own terms — but the very practices of scientific enquiry must also be publicly owned, in the sense of being open and trusted. From outside, and even to the neutral, the attitudes revealed in the emails do not look good. To those with bigger axes to grind it is just what they wanted to find.
This will blow its course soon in the conventional media without making too much difference to Copenhagen — after all, COP15 is about raw politics, not about the politics of science. But in the Internet worlds of deliberation and in the ‘mood’ of public debate about the trustworthiness of climate science, the reverberations of this episode will live on long beyond COP15. Climate scientists will have to work harder to earn the warranted trust of the public – and maybe that is no bad thing.
But this episode might signify something more in the unfolding story of climate change. This event might signal a crack that allows for processes of re-structuring scientific knowledge about climate change. It is possible that some areas of climate science has become sclerotic. It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.
It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production – just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.
h/t to Marc Morano
Sponsored IT training links:
Save your time and money with 642-832 online training. Download 70-646 Q & A with self paced EX0-101 practice exam to prepare and pass exam on first try.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Climate analysis will regain confidence, perhaps, if everyone involved moves to openness and transparency – and more climate analysts speak out against CRU and friends’ culture of tribalism.
(Climate analysts is a better term than climate scientists. The field of “climate analysis” is a more accurate term than “climate science”.)
I believe it was just a cycle. We warm and cool within many cycles caused by the sun and ocean currents.
Science, in this instance, has already consummated its relationship with the political process; Science might find that Politics is not eager to give up the affair so quickly.
Are we going to trust Hume to lead the charge for change???
From Luboš Motl’s Blog:
“Hulme tells us that if the scientists are going to be listened to in the future, they must “recognize the social limits of their truth seeking” – WOW. 😉 They must thus “trade truth for influence” – WOW. He also says that the “climate change is too important to be left to scientists” – WOW – “least of all the normal ones” – WOW. Hulme promotes the idea that the climate science should become a “post-normal science” – WOW. He says that the “danger” of the “normal science” is that it assumes that the truth is found before the policies are created – WOW.
In the post-normal science that he recommends, science is ready to change “as it rubs against society” – WOW – and the disputes should focus on sociological issues such as funding, personal evaluations, and the format of presentations – WOW. In order to make progress with the climate change, we must “take science off center stage” – WOW. Hulme correctly says that an honest scientist can’t answer questions like “what level of CO2 is too much” because the answer depends on a value judgment which is not a part of science but the only reason why he says so is that he wants to urge scientists to become “post-normal scientists” who claim to be able to answer such questions – WOW.
If I summarize it, he wants to destroy the difference between science and politics completely. I just find it rather breathtaking. This is not a generic crank from Real Climate or Not Even Wrong. This is officially a director of an institute that pretends to be a scientific institute whom we have praised for certain things.”
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/mike-hulme-and-post-normal-science.html
Seems like they are starting to come out of the bunker with their hands up!
I hope they have enough white flags to go round.
The statement is reasonable, but rather bland. On the other hand, could you imagine an AGW insider making such a statement to the public even 2 weeks ago? Daylight is a wonderful disinfectant, isn’t it? 🙂
This just in, scientist are now 91.800% sure there is a problem and we created it. Here is the proof:
certainty = 90.00;
certainty *= 1.0200;
Wow, first Monbiot, and now this? 😀
Sour grapes by Hulme.
He knows the jig is up, and now he is looking for the exit signs.
Hulme and his ‘post normal science needs to be tossed out hard onto the ash heap.
He and his pals rigged the IPCC into a puppet echo chamber for their apocalyptic clap trap. They made millions and millions of grant dollars fabricating and selling junk data. They were suppressing counter data. And now he whines about the IPCC running its course and how it is all about raw politics. He just knows the money train is not coming to his station again for awhile.
This sleazy sun of a gun and his pals alomost succeededin conning the world out of trillions.
Of course Revkin has yet to interview one hig profile skpetic who was predicting that at its heart AGW was about deception.
It is passing strange taht the media, allegedly wanting its members, readers, or viewers to get the whole story has yet to do any specials analyzing the letters and data and code, or allowing skeptics who suspected they would be as they prove to be, speak freely.
What low end cowards these AGW promoters are, when push comes to shove.
OT, but not really.
Sea ice? I guess they’re keeping their heads down over there.
Smart.
Matthew (13:37:14) :
“I believe it was just a cycle. We warm and cool within many cycles caused by the sun and ocean currents”
If we are to believe in astrology all this is being caused by Uranus and Saturn opposition ☺
I think this is very shocking. I have looked a bit at his book he wrote “Why we diagree on global warming”. That is a pro post-normal science book. He should be gratefull about the connection between science-politics. What he is saying here in my book is: We have done our job, its up to the politics now. IPCC has done its job :S
Mike Hulme speaking out at this time is no coincidence.
He has probably experienced the scientific climate at CRU for a long time, had misgivings with it, but felt uneasy about rocking the boat until now. His good name is on the line along with the reputation of the entire university. Without decisive action from the UEA it is badly tarnished.
Suggesting the demise of the IPCC comes as a bit of a surprise, but is entirely logical.
This is already doing some good.
“This will blow its course soon in the conventional media without making too much difference to Copenhagen — after all, COP15 is about raw politics…”
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” –Winston Churchill
Make no mistake; we are at war this very minute. If your elected representative won’t listen to you, print up 100 flyers with the facts about Climategate and pass them out door-to-door, if you have to. Yes, the will never print the truth. Never.
Karl Maki (13:39:46) :
Science, in this instance, has already consummated its relationship with the political process; Science might find that Politics is not eager to give up the affair so quickly.
NOM!
It’s late, the prom is over, and Politics expects some “consessions” before Science can get out of the car and get home. Who will be our “George McFly”?
I have a friend, George P. (www.freebuck.com) who has a lecture on “Dogma” which he gives to civic groups, critical thinking clubs, etc.
In it he warns of the dangers of “tribalism” and “tribal mentality”, which he has found in all sorts of groups, from the churches, to government bodies, to national entities. (For example both Japan and Germany’s WWII escapades in WWII can be attributed to a “tribal” attitude amoung the populations.)
When he first went over the Emails this weekend he wrote me that “Extremely good example of ‘tribalism’…”
I think that Mike Hulme is NOT ALONE in this assesment.
One of the videos of a programmer commenting on WUWT suggests that the PAPERS WRITTEN USING THE WORTHLESS CODES should be withdrawn.
Propose that and wait for the CRU to come out with WARPAINT and bones through their noses. (Bunga, bunga, bunga…)
Sorry, couldn’t resist!
How sad that we’ve had to wait this long for some to start being honest.
The political machine in the US will continue to use AGW as a mechanism to transfer wealth within the US and from the US to other countries. This edifice has taken 20 years to build. It will not be dismantled anytime soon. The opportunities for vote buying and graft are just too huge.
The rats desert the sinking ship.
Maybe it sounds completely idiotic, but I am tasting the word “free”. I felt more free after the emails, and now I feel even more, yes, free. Professor Hulme has opened a large window to let some air into the room, and it feels great, and I am really greatful for his truly bold act. It’s a wonderful night!
Agreed and so has a lot of the MSM
BBC quote;
“The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.”
http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2007/06/bbc-bias.html
Picture looks like your typical smug third-rate scientist to me.
In Australia no effect whatsoever. The Australian has been bought out by the warmistas or more likely M Turnbull see The Australian today Saturday
We also need to pressure our politicians for transparency of science. Every research that is paid for by the public purse should be available immediately only for review and reading by the public.
Not-so-good news from down under. This [snip] line is from an editorial in The Australian:
“whatever the science ultimately shows, Australians of all political persuasions believe humanity is responsible for global warming and the government has to act to reduce its impact.”
We don’t care if the science says it’s drivel, we must act because people BELIEVE it’s not. How can any responsible person possibly write that?
I doubt Mike Hulme and Phil Jones meet for coffee often inthe UEA senior staffroom.