The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.
“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”
Choice excerpts from Hulme:
“Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism. Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies…”
And philosophical types will want to dig here
“Mayer and Arndt (2009) warn against the ‘epistemological hegemony’ of the IPCC and sociologist Bruno Latour goes so far as to describe the IPCC as an ‘epistemological monster’…”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well what else is new. I’m getting a bit sick and tired listening to the experts say the science is settled; but then they don’t seem too able to tell you just what that science consists of.
They can adjust trends and error bands; and somehow out of that chaos the Rosetta stone is supposed to emerge.
Let’s see, they were competing with Mann, Jones et al for the Nobel trickery prize?
They certainly hid the decline in support.
Now then, how were they taken out of context on this one?
The whole “consensus” thing is phoney. It’s a straw man argument because science is not determined by consensus. “Consensus” is a political term, not a scientific term.
Insomuch as the IPCC is a political body and not a scientific one, “consensus” may be an appropriate term. But don’t confuse that with science.
How the Screw turns around:
At the Dalton Minimum:
The Storming of the Bastille occurred in Paris on the 14th of July, 1789.
At the Landsheidt Minimum:
The storming of the United Nations building occurred in New York……
I keep expecting the IPCC to make the right moves and to clean its house up. But it appears the corruption simply runs too deep. It’s hopelessly beyond repair.
I’m shocked, shocked to find that the IPCC would misconstrue such information!
Bruno Latour is an interesting writer. I read a piece he wrote on Einstein’s popular book on relativity a number years ago. He commented that Einstein’s method of shifting in frames of reference via the Lorenz transformation had parrallels in the imposition of exchange rates by dominant economies on their neighbouring trading partners.
These days he may have worked up some analogies to the pressure applied to scientists to couch their theories and hypotheses in terms of the dominant paradigm of the day.
A worthwhile read.
Part of the 2500 were not scientists or meteorologists but college academia types , reporters , and government officials was what I read. No matter, it seems they are getting away with it. Just look at what the current administration in Washington is up to.
The ordinary citizen is almost helpless except for the ballot box and most people are ignorant of what’s going on, so even that is questionable.
If the science was ‘settled’, they wouldn’t still be arguing and trying to prove it for the past 15 years.
They haven’t proved it yet.
If anything, they continue to prove that they don’t have a clue what they are talking about by making predictions that seem to always do the opposite.
While I agree with Nuke that “consensus” is an overrated term, I have to wonder why more scientists haven’t spoken up about this misrepresentation. Surely they are aware of the IPCC’s claims.
So science is not settled, then Lisa Jackson will back away from CO2 findings? Everyone should be laughing at the thought. This is the politics of control and taxation.
In before the trolls:
Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are:
Disingenuous
1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating
2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
3. Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive.
Epistemological Hegemony’ political, economic, ideological or cultural theory of knowledge.
Sounds like someone else thinks AGW is a religion too.
The definition of epistemological:
The reality which emerges from the outcome of a process in which the mind conceptually structures a given content which is little more than idealistic rationalism.
tallbloke says:
June 14, 2010 at 12:43 pm
…he would be one of the 2500 experts, no doubt.
Kate says:
June 14, 2010 at 12:57 pm
The definition of epistemological:
The reality which emerges from the outcome of a process in which the mind conceptually structures a given content which is little more than idealistic rationalism.
Well, yes. The thing is, our entire understanding of the universe rests on epistemological foundations.
One of my old philosophy profs once defined the philosophy of language as:
“A bit like going to a good restaurant….
And eating the menu.”
Good line. This guy held up his finger to test wind direction and makes this statement to sound more politically inclusive.
Are there any records of his claiming before Climate gate that it was unsettled?
Just changing the big line from global warming to climate change tells us something wasn’t settled.
The term “concensus” only applies when a single scientist is questioned. Come to think of it, that’s about what the IPCC did!
My hope is that RealClimate’s Gavin Schmidt experiences Real Jail.
In the next “Daikiris’ meeting” in Cancun the Holy Prophet will be chosen as Kommissar Maximum of Global Governance, the only and supreme judge of the International Court in charged of punishing Carbon Sins and persecuting climate change deniers and sceptics of post-normal science consensus alike.
He will be called The Nefarious Father, the unique bearer of a dark hole in each of his eyes.
Enneagram says:
June 14, 2010 at 12:59 pm
tallbloke says:
June 14, 2010 at 12:43 pm
…he would be one of the 2500 experts, no doubt.
Errrrr,, no. Buno Latour has always been a bit of an iconoclast. I doubt he would be found supporting the mainstream position.
So…these consensus scientists were all VIRTUAL, modelled, they were just a kind of “scientist-derivatives” .
Where’s the WUWT Arctic Sea Ice news??? 🙁
[Here. ~dbs, mod.]
Hulme is in the business of fine-tuning the narrative to push it down your throat more efficiently. He’s slow, i have to say.
Some other epistemological monsters:
Cap-and-Taxilla
FrankenFranken
MantiGore
Dracupachauri
King Kongress
Mannclops
Joe Romm
@ur momisugly Jack morrow says:
June 14, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Part of the 2500 were not scientists or meteorologists but college academia types , reporters , and government officials was what I read. No matter, it seems they are getting away with it. Just look at what the current administration in Washington is up to.
The ordinary citizen is almost helpless except for the ballot box and most people are ignorant of what’s going on, so even that is questionable.
Indeed. And the machine is getting well oiled at the moment, courtesy of BP.