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’…”
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
@ 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.
Science is never really settled – on anything. Even stuff that seems fundamental will be finely tuned in the coming years. Anyone who says ‘the science is settled’ isn’t a scientist and doesn’t understand science. In much the same way, anyone who says ‘carbon footprint’ doesn’t understand what they’re talking about. My favourite is to listen to a journalist who is clearly way out of his/her depth. Sometimes it’s actually really amusing. Here in the UK a few years ago, ITV ‘journalist’ Sue Saville (clearly completely ignorant) actually said these words, “Global warming is caused by cars” to a camera – while pointing to a car’s exhaust pipe. It was so pathetic that it was actually funny. Apparently no one had told her that cars are just an addition to CO2 release – whether or not CO2 actually causes warming!
Epistemology is simply the study of what constitutes knowledge and how knowledge may be obtained.
tallbloke says:
June 14, 2010 at 1:29 pm
No, I meant Albert Einstein. He was a precursor with his Doomsday Clock.
Ignorance of the Law is not a a legitimate defence in a Court of Law.
Ignorance of the facts is not a foundation upon which our political leaders should anchor our future.
Mr Clegg, Mr Cameron and President Obama, history will not bring your advisors into the spotlight, except as a sidenote, if you’ve been misled then now is the time to find out and kick ass if you’ve been been duped!
If anyone should hide behind the defence of authority then it must not be the leaders, unless they be those that are led.
This should be big news in the media. BIG news.
Not for those who as followed this process over time. But for the voters, it should be on the front page of every newspaper all over the world.
But my guess we will see none of it.
Especially not in Norway, where the Government keeps pressing on.
For the CAGW followers it would have been a hard sting in the deepest parts of their belief-system.
But they wont hear about it, I’m afraid.
Very interesting. The thesis is well understood – if there were 2500 active climate researchers the cast of characters in the Climategate letters would have been much greater, so instead of Climategate proving what was suspected we have here a suspicion that was proven by Climategate and now admitted to.
I’m intrigued at how well Hulme treats the IPCC as an organization without looking at the parts. If he had, then many colleagues at UEA would have had feathers ruffled. so we have a criticism of authority without ad hominems, though to really understand how the IPCC created and climbed upon its pedestal, we really need to know who did what and how they managed to become such an authority.
Finally, I thought Hulme was part of the team. His paper destroys the pedestal and the missing 2525 or so scientists could get the attention of the MSM. At the very least, claims of consensus will fall on deafer ears. Has he decided that there is no science in the IPCC reports that is worth saving? Is the IPCC worth saving?
I’m sure glad I’m not an IPCC member based at UEA. More than six months of stress and no reward. At least Hulme found a way to keep himself busy.
Snowlover123 says:
June 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm
>> Where’s the WUWT Arctic Sea Ice news??? 🙁
>[Here. ~dbs, mod.]
See also
http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cat_sea_ice_news.html
http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cat_sea_ice.html
This post is all over the internet but I wonder how many of the news networks (propaganda outlets) and cable news shows will pick it up—not. The left might call them deniers of the “settled science” of AGW (like the term birthers) and start talking about the oil leak in the Gulf.
This ain’t surprising.
IPCC – “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected”
“Why the Maldives aren’t sinking”
Former lead reviewer for the IPCC, Nils-Axel Mörner
“Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports.
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author.
Pachauri’s interests.
“To defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.”
Einstein
Moderator, this comment is completely political, I’ll try to be civil.
Our leadership in the Gulf Oil Spill is just looking for face time, pointing fingers, accusing, making statements that are laughable. Obama, taking responsibility indeed. As if he is an engineer who has the background to actually design something that works. I’m sorry but not only is he a politician, but a stupid one at that. (the door slams in as the Secret Service barges in to search for this terrorist)
CO2 is the cause of the hour, politicians (most of them) leap on the bandwagon. We need to remember that the UN, individual country governments, and even the local yokels always ask – “And how many votes can I count on by taking this position?”
I daresay that many voters are asking the question if I vote for (choose your candidate) what will I gain?
If you like hugging trees, remember, that tree needs CO2 to live…
Mike
Jim G says:
June 14, 2010 at 2:13 pm
If it’s all over the internet who cares for the unread, unheard and unwatched MSM?
The BEST argument ever against IPCC’s Global Warming/Climate Change is HIM, the Transgenic himself.
“Ric Werme says:
[…]
Finally, I thought Hulme was part of the team. His paper destroys the pedestal and the missing 2525 or so scientists could get the attention of the MSM. At the very least, claims of consensus will fall on deafer ears. Has he decided that there is no science in the IPCC reports that is worth saving? ”
Hulme’s part is not inventing new CO2-related hypothesises, formulas or models or assessing whether the science holds water. His job is to analyze how it goes down, how the masses can be manipulated, which scare scenario works best, what is detrimental to the cause – in this case, he identified a weakness. Accordingly we will not see the 2500 mentioned again. Something else will take its place.
Hulme is up to his eyeballs in quicksand. Never forget, he has always been a major part of the clique.
From the start he was a senior research associate at CRU ‘specialising in the construction of observed climatologies and in the validation of global climate models.’
It is simply too late to come cap in hand in the hope of a lesser sentence.
el gordo says:
June 14, 2010 at 2:31 pm
From the start he was a senior research associate at CRU…
The whistle blower perhaps?
That’s a clever bit of wordplay, tallbloke, and one that I appreciate, but have a look at this Latour and this Sokal’s Hoax for an alternative viewpoint on Latour. These are part of a commentary on “Postmodernism and Its Problems With Science” by Jean Bricmont. You might also be interested in Latour’s apparent beliefs about global warming as can be seen in an article of his in the journal Critical Inquiry.
/dr.bill
A summation of the IPCC stance; 2500 scientists agree but not necessarily with each other.
Sorry, but I read the conclusion and it is so much academic masturbatory nonsense.
Hulme was in charge of TAR scenario development?? And in the SRES we have scenarios that could not happen for lack of sufficient fossil fuel CO2, scenarios developed from totally unrealistc economic assumptions, and none of the scenarios having any probabilities attached. Doesn’t say much for Hulme’s intellect or judgment.
And you thought the Council of Nicea couldn’t happen again
El gordo,
I think you are too harsh. Hulme is travelling a road from absolute insider to outsider, acknowledging the problems that insiders ignore. This takes some courage. He surely knows that he will soon face the prospect of rejection by the colleagues he has worked with for so long. They will start to call him a ‘maverick’ or a ‘sore loser’ because of something or other.
This is a considerable personal step and I think he should be applauded for taking it.
“”Gareth says:
June 14, 2010 at 2:44 pm
A summation of the IPCC stance; 2500 scientists agree but not necessarily with each other.””
They modeled it Gareth…………..
The problem with CAGW is its protean nature. We were told there is a consensus on it. This proves to be exaggerated (the SPM, the IPCC’s most-read output, was always the work of a few dozen people). But don’t hope for too much acknowledgement of this. CAGW will mutate to some other form – if all else fails it will invoke the precautionary principle; which is fair enough if done sensibly, but not if it just legitimises alarmism by other means. Drought proves CAGW, so does flood. Shrinking ice in Antarctica proves CAGW, so does growing ice. If a CAGW story collapses, as with the Tuvalu Pacific island case of 2 meter sea level rise recently debunked here by Willis Eschenbach – and why didn’t this 2 meter rise show up in all the earth’s interconnected oceans? – another such scare will bob up from somewhere around the world. I believe it is important to educate the public that such endless facile agreement with a hypothesis is not a strong point of it at all. It shows the theory is too rubbery to be clearly proved or disproved, as Popper said of Marxism and Freudianism.
I think this quote from Hulme’s paper says it all. IPCC was never about science it was about “building a community identity” using a predetermined conclusion, “the role of humans in climate change” That is why the paper reports complaints about the “under representation” of the Social Sciences. “Of this peer-reviewed sub-set, just 12 per cent were from the social sciences” That is why “DENIERS” were completely shut out of the process and viewed as heretics to be attacked and silenced. We were never “with the real agenda”
“Since its origins, the IPCC has been open and explicit about seeking to generate a ‘scientific consensus’ around climate change and especially about the role of humans in climate change. Yet this has been a source of both strength and vulnerability for the IPCC. Understanding consensus as a process of ‘truth creation’ (or the more nuanced ‘knowledge production’) which marginalises dissenting voices – as has frequently been portrayed by some of the IPCC’s critics (see Edwards & Schneider, 2001; Petersen, 2010) – does not do justice to the process.
Consensus-building in fact serves several different goals. As Horst and Irwin (2010) have explained, seeking consensus can be as much about building a community identity – what Haas (1992) refers to as an epistemic community – as it is about seeking the ‘truth’.”
As skeptics we have concentrated on the science, however the science was never really important except as an instrument used to bring about “building a community identity” that would then be used to promote “social change”
I hope anyone who reads that paragraph can see there were ulterior motives behind the “IPPC Science” that render it useless because it was never unbiased.
Hulme knows were the science is going and he is jumping ship before it sinks completely. Why is he talking now? Why not 10 year ago? Becasue ten years ago, nay, up to one year ago, the IPCC cabal was still feeling very safe and cosy with easy money coming in and supported by the mainstream media, politicians and my taxes. But the tide has turned and many are now jumping ship and swimming to the shore where the climate truth is. Welcome home Mr. Hulme.
Enneagram says:
June 14, 2010 at 1:52 pm
tallbloke says:
June 14, 2010 at 1:29 pm
No, I meant Albert Einstein. He was a precursor with his Doomsday Clock.
Ah, with you now. Yes, right from the day Leo Tzilard went to Einstein with his worries about German uranium mining in Africa, old Albert was getting himself embroiled into the politics of science.
On the subject of atomic clocks, Lois Essen who built and calibrated them reckons old Albert had it wrong with his thought experiments on time dilation.
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Essen-L.htm
It’s not all bad for the IPCC: It was the inspiration for a steamy novel.
He also make this point “But consensus-making can also lead to criticism for being too conservative, as Hansen (2007) has most visibly argued…” in the next sentence. So what is be really saying? Is the IPCC too conservative?
Thanks tallbloke.
Hulme also had some comments on PNS..
If you have not seen it, this is an interesting interview where AGW ideology discussed:
http://fora.tv/2009/11/06/Uncommon_Knowledge_Vaclav_Klaus#fullprogram
Alex the skeptic.
I don’t think you can make simple assumptions about Hulme. he is a very interesting character in the whole climategate controversy. I think he is driven by larger principles.. right now that’s all I’ll say..
I applaud Hulme because he could have stayed silent and continued lapping up the gravy from the train. This and other statements by him may be a prelude to completely jumping ship and becoming a’rabid sceptic. :o)
I would caution people against fitting Hulme in a box.
A complex cat to be sure. I’d love to interview him.
“”Gail Combs says:””
Excellent Gail, I think you have it 100% right
david elder says:
June 14, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Re: Tuvalu
From what I vaguely remember not all sea level rises are equal around the globe. Still, the Tuvalu and Maldives nonsense was smacked down some time back anyway.
Sea levels and atolls
http://solomonstarnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7075&change=103&changeown=89&Itemid=45
Former lead reviewer for the IPCC, Nils-Axel Mörner)
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5595813/why-the-maldives-arent-sinking.thtml
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/floating-islands/
“Atolls are created by sea level rise, not destroyed by sea level rise.”
@ Gail Combs says:
June 14, 2010 at 3:12 pm
………………….As skeptics we have concentrated on the science, however the science was never really important except as an instrument used to bring about “building a community identity” that would then be used to promote “social change”
Also known as “manufacturing consent”. – The book of the same name, by Herman & Chomsky. I’m not a fan of either, but the book was a blueprint for how this is going down today, even tho it was written for a different world (1988).
Spin spin spin. Below is a paragraph that the ‘disingenuous’ quote came from.
“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; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields. But consensus-making can also lead to criticism for being too conservative, as Hansen (2007) has most visibly argued. Was the IPCC AR4 too conservative in reaching its consensus about future sea-level rise? Many glaciologists and oceanographers think they were (Kerr, 2007; Rahmstorf, 2010), leading to what Hansen attacks as ‘scientific reticence’. Solomon et al. (2008) offer a robust defence, stating that far from reaching a premature consensus, the AR4 report stated that in fact no consensus could be reached on the magnitude of the possible fast ice-sheet melt processes that some fear could lead to 1 or 2 metres of sea-level rise this century. Hence these processes were not included in the quantitative estimates.”
Note that quotation does not have a source – it is a general ‘for instance’. It does not say who, if anyone, is saying the IPCC process involved only climate scientists, only that this false impression is ‘out there’ in the media.
There is plenty of evidence from statements of national academies, professional scientific associations and surveys of climate scientists, that a large majority of climatologists agree that ‘that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate.’ The paragraph goes on to say that the IPCC report may be too conservative.
The paper is a literature review and does not draw strict conclusions. It may be helpful to the IPCC process as it grapples with how to present a vast area of science to policy makers and the general public in a ‘fair and balanced’ manner. The Nation Post is distorting the purpose of the article.
Secret IPCC meeting details:
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/secret-ipcc-panel-meeting/
What’s the opposite of “robust”?
Good news. The herd is breaking ranks. Whatever criticisms one may have about the particulars, the guy should be commended on his courage. One might say that he’s just getting out ahead of the collapse but… the forces and megabucks depending on this AGW project may well just plow ahead no matter what.
Particulary with Comrade Obama in power, making the most of the Gulf crisis.
Exactly. I think Hulme let the ‘disingenuous’ nature of the IPCC’s ‘consensus’ claim slip by accident; it’s a damning revelation. His paper is otherwise a compendium review of other studies of the IPCC ‘process’ in bureaucratic ‘postmodern’ jargon. But Hulme has now told the world what climate realists (i.e. real scientists) have known for a long time, namely that the IPCC’s goal was not to do science but to create the appearance of science to justify a massive political agenda of socialist ‘global governance’.
Now how can we get this truth to penetrate the thick skulls of the mass media?
/Mr Lynn
Curiousgeorge says:
June 14, 2010 at 3:51 pm
“….Also known as “manufacturing consent”. – The book of the same name, by Herman & Chomsky. I’m not a fan of either, but the book was a blueprint for how this is going down today, even tho it was written for a different world (1988).”
___________________________________________________________________
It is also known as “Hegelian dielectric” or “building consensus” Livestock farmers have gotten a bellyful here in the USA in the last decade. It is pretty frightening to know international organizations are using sophisticated techniques to lead people around by the nose. Especially when the predetermined conclusion they are leading us to is harmful to us.
From this spring:
“In the USDA Friday March 18-19 meetings that were held for Traceability they have facilitators at each table. Now notice in these docs that each topic discussion is timed and then the groups move to another topic. No group knows what the other is saying. They did this in all the other NAIS sessions. It is highly manipulative and I highly doubt these people know who attend know what is going on other then the believers. What the USDA is using is the Hegelian dialectic to get a predetermined consensus. This process was designed by George Wilhelm Hegel, a transformational Marxist.
Here is how it works: A diverse group of people ( Farm Bureau, American Horse Council, VETS ( believers (thesis) and unbelievers (antithesis) gather in a facilitated meeting (USDA and with a trained facilitator/teacher/group leader/change agent) using group dynamics (Peer pressure) to discuss a social issue (NAIS/Traceability) and reach a pre-determined outcome (consensus, compromise, or Systhesis)
To understand it more (typing the HTTP http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/brainwashing/dialectic.htm ) Read it all and you will see that the very groups we know use the ‘Process’ to sway our thinking. Learn and understand it. The Delphi technique ( type in Http http://www.learn-usa.com/transformation_process/acf001.htm) is based on the Hegelian principle and there is ways to break this up but you must know how to recognize when the Delphi/Hegelian principle is being used.(type in the Http http://www.learn-usa.com/transformation_process/acf002.htm )”
Comment gisela
Unfortunately “they” just keep coming no matter how many times you say no. “They” are determined to run independent farmers out of business here in the USA and they will slip a food law in as soon as we quit watching “them” for a second. I am not sure but I think they just changed the name and slipped a NAIS like regulation through this month despite the overwhelming opposition to it.
Nuke says:
June 14, 2010 at 12:30 pm
“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.”
exactly! For hundreds if not thousands of years there was a consensus that the earth was flat.
Of course The National Post is ignoring (not distorting) the purpose of the article. Kudos to TNP for picking out this damning sentence:
“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.”
In one blow it reveals the deceit and chicanery that led to the creation of the IPCC in order to pursue a radical political agenda, disguised as science.
They have been thwarted, by Climategate and Copenhagen, but make no mistake: they have not given up. Tomorrow look for The Great Pretender to tell us how the ‘environmental catastrophe’ of the Gulf undersea gusher requires the Congress to pass a Cap and Trade bill, which will put every form of productive activity under the strict rule of the government.
Don’t let the Congress and the American people fall for it!
/Mr Lynn
So funny, at the bottom of the article, from Google ads,
Ads by Google
CSIRO Survey
Australia Coastal Survey on Property & Rising Sea Levels
http://www.cse.csiro.au/coastal-survey
Complete this survey and let CSIRO know what you think, I have
Mike D. says:
June 14, 2010 at 4:35 pm
> What’s the opposite of “robust”?
I’d say fragile.
I’ve hated “robust” since I first heard in Computer Science structured programming cheerleading around 1970. Unfortunately, I haven’t come up with an acceptable alternative yet.
(Note to ancient programmers – I’m not saying structured programming (or object oriented languages) are bad things, just that the loudest cheerleaders seemed to need the most practice at writing readable and maintainable code.) (There ought to be a parallel with the those cheering on the consensus needing to learn how scientific method really works.)
Curiousgeorge says:
June 14, 2010 at 3:51 pm
@ Gail Combs says:
June 14, 2010 at 3:12 pm
………………….As skeptics we have concentrated on the science, however the science was never really important except as an instrument used to bring about “building a community identity” that would then be used to promote “social change”
Also known as “manufacturing consent”. – The book of the same name, by Herman & Chomsky. I’m not a fan of either, but the book was a blueprint for how this is going down today, even tho it was written for a different world (1988).
—…—…—…
Manufacturing consent” eh? Of “the governed” by “the elite” maybe?
Interesting confluence of the communist/socialist Chomsky (who figures greatly in maintaining and directing the international socialist/academic direction of thought) and the green remnants from the failure of socialism and communism in Europe and the US. Without this artificial and much advertised/propagandized “consent” and “consensus” there could be no successful propaganda promoting the CAGW agenda.
With a trained and educated and morally correct press corps, there would be no propaganda published. But today’s press “corpse” actively promotes the propaganda and lies of CAGW because its furthers THEIR causes.
RoyFOMR says:
June 14, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Once you realize
Barack Insane Obummer(sorry, self semi-snip) Obama isn’t really interested in science (despite campaigning that he was going to bring science back to its rightful position) you will understand the frustration much better. He and all his advisers care more about power over people than they do about alternative sources of power. The IPCC is the same. That’s why they’ve always touted the consensus when there never was one.Gail, thanks for the gisela link. 🙂
I visit several other special interest blogs/forums, most of which are connected to one or more of my hobbies, and that usually don’t allow discussion of politics, current events, etc., but even at those forums there is a growing undercurrent of discontent with the state of things, and what is seen as increasingly intrusive and incompetent gov’t. And folks are just not buying the line that it’s “for our own good”, etc. The whole AGW thing is seen as nothing more than another means ( one of several, real and/or artificial, crises that feed Joe Romm’s appetite – you know the line, and if one isn’t handy, create one. ) to subjugate the country/world, and it wouldn’t take much to push some people beyond what they can tolerate. As my late grandmother would say; “It ain’t soup yet, but the pots bubblin’ .”
RACook says:
‘But today’s press “corpse” actively promotes the propaganda and lies of CAGW because its furthers THEIR causes.’
Having spent some time in the trade, it appears more likely they swallowed the green pill and never took time to understand the scientific arguments.
Mike D. says:
June 14, 2010 at 4:35 pm
What’s the opposite of “robust”?
If Robust is:
“strong and healthy; hardy; vigorous: a robust young man; a robust faith; a robust mind.”
Then the opposite has to be either
Frail
1. having delicate health; not robust; weak: My grandfather is rather frail now.
2. easily broken or destroyed; fragile.
3. morally weak; easily tempted
Or
Feeble
1. physically weak, as from age or sickness; frail.
2. weak intellectually or morally: a feeble mind.
3. lacking in volume, loudness, brightness, distinctness, etc.: a feeble voice; feeble light.
4. lacking in force, strength, or effectiveness: feeble resistance; feeble arguments.
I’ll go with the Climate Models are Feeble.
The National Post quoting from the article by Hulme and Mahoney:
“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…”
Notice the entire sentence wasn’t quoted. I think the last part was left out because including it would have raised questions the National Post didn’t want. Below is the complete sentence from the article:
” 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; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.”
If among all IPCC authors only experts in detection and attribution are qualified to back claims of man-made global warming, and the few dozen who were IPCC authors do back the claims , don’t we have a consensus of IPPC experts?
If IPCC authors who areexperts in other fields can join in the consensus, don’t we have a consensus of thousands?
Mike D. says:
June 14, 2010 at 4:35 pm
What’s the opposite of “robust”?
Robust Or bust
Steven mosher says:
June 14, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Thanks tallbloke.
Hulme also had some comments on PNS..
Here’s the relevant section.
Saloranta (2001) and Yamineva (2010) both approach the question of the governance and operation of the IPCC through the lens of post-normal science (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993), yet they reach almost diametrically opposite conclusions. Saloranta argues that the IPCC is an example of how the philosophy of post-normal science is reflected in practice, whereas Yamineva is critical of the Panel’s reflexivity: “… the IPCC is clearly not a post-normal science institution in this regard” (Yamineva, 2010: 178). This lack of reflexivity is echoed by Beck (2010) in her study of the appropriateness of the IPCC model of knowledge production for the difficult questions surrounding adaptation policy and decision-making. She offers evidence suggesting that Miller’s (2007) anxiety that the IPCC has not earned the political legitimacy it needs to exert constraints on the global exercise of power may be well-founded.
My bold.
Diametrically opposite conclusions eh? Sounds like the normal situation for the application of PNS ideas by different people.
😉
Mike D.: June 14, 2010 at 4:35 pm
What’s the opposite of “robust”?
“Busted” — including the legal connotation…
re Wren: June 14, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Wren (seriously), I don’t understand how you can, on the one hand, repeatedly and relentlessly just skim the surface of anything ‘alarmist’ and then spend such large amounts of time in detailed nit-picking about anything ‘counter-alarmist’, while treating the rest of us as illiterate clods who can’t see beyond our noses.
Your post that I have referenced is a case in point. All of us have likely read the whole article, many of us before it appeared on WUWT, and we read entire sentences and paragraphs, and can generally do so without moving our lips. Newspapers don’t put everything into their headlines. They put what will catch people’s attention, and they often try to compress what they think is the gist of an article into that headline. Headlines are supposed to be short. Everyone on the planet knows that you have to read beyond the brief quotes and headlines.
Your analysis of the IPCC ‘concensus’ suffers from a trivial weakness of logic. In science fiction novels, for example, particularly those involving great quantities of minute description, a common symptom arises. If you ask a Biologist for an opinion of the novel, you often get an answer like: “Some errors in the Biology, but otherwise good.” Ask a Physicist, and you’ll get: “Some errors in the Physics, but otherwise good.”, and so on for the Chemists, Engineers, Geologists, Economists, and all the others.
The IPCC process suffers from the exact complement of this paradigm, and I cannot believe that you do not see this, because you are too articulate otherwise. If you have financial interests in the matter, then I can at least understand that. If that isn’t the case, then I simply don’t understand how you can write these things as if you believe them. You just don’t seem that dumb.
/dr.bill
Wren: June 14, 2010 at 10:42 pm
” 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; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.”
If among all IPCC authors only experts in detection and attribution are qualified to back claims of man-made global warming, and the few dozen who were IPCC authors do back the claims , don’t we have a consensus of IPPC experts?
If IPCC authors who areexperts in other fields can join in the consensus, don’t we have a consensus of thousands?
I could write a report proving UV-Induced Systemic Degradation of Binary Neurotoxins on Military Aircraft Treated with CARC Paint, recommend that CARC-treated aircraft should only be flown during daylight hours, and get thousands of experts — in Library Science and Ninjutsu — to agree with me.
If one individual with a lick of common sense called bullsh*t and showed why, my Magic Consensus of Thousands isn’t worth doodley-squat to science.
Where are the journalists on this?
Wren,
If a music group has thousands of fans, does that mean that there are thousands of people in the group?
Wren says: June 14, 2010 at 10:42 pm
If IPCC authors who areexperts in other fields can join in the consensus, don’t we have a consensus of thousands?
Yes, we do have a “consensus of thousands”:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
“I did not say the ‘IPCC misleads’ anyone – it is claims that are made by other commentators, such as the caricatured claim I offer in the paper, that have the potential to mislead.”
— http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Correcting-reports-of-the-PiPG-paper.pdf
I’m happy to see that one insider has spoken out and revealed the propaganda and spin (The Big Lie?) that gave the blinkered the ability to hide behind a mantra that there WAS this consensus of science and scientists of such magnitude, that we who dared question should move aside, get out of the way, the science is settled.
Now exactly where is the apology, the mea culpa of all those that used that big lie to ignore the damage that had been done to science, put their head in the sand, fingers firmly in their ears while they poured scorn on sceptics who dared speak up.
Must be embarrassing for those that knew it was a lie, but kept silent while the vultures at Real Climate fed out stories to tar and feather respected fellow scientists, blacken their names, or destroy their personal reputations with unfounded claims of associations with big oil, tobacco, or whatever. The bigger the name, the more vicious and inventive, so the sceptical message of these despised “contrarian’s” would be ignored as that vilification continued apace! And all so an inner circle of scare mongering “scientists” could protect the precious hold on their science and lock out dissent.
Blowing the whistle on the reality after blowflies have maggotted the pie of climate science and the smell is becoming apparent, is one thing, but it is now time for others to stand up and publicly support those that have been vilified, and tell the whole truth of what they know and reveal their part as a matter of scientific conscience.
The sooner that is done, the sooner climate science will be restored (mended) in my opinion.
Like the aliens who have been visiting earth for thousands of years …. these contrarian scientists Hulme claims to exist …..
Where are they?
Only by explaining, and by accurate prediction of anomalies at a seasonal, and finer level, would one have a realistic climate model. Without a theory for natural variation, its all politics.
This leads onto the question of how uncertainty more generally has been treated across the various IPCC Working Groups. As Ha-Duong et al. (2007) and Swart et al. (2009) explain, despite efforts by the IPCC leadership to introduce a consistent methodology for uncertainty communication (Moss & Schneider, 2000; Manning, 2006), it has in fact been impossible to police. Different Working Groups, familiar and comfortable with different epistemic traditions, construct and communicate uncertainty in different ways. This opens up possibilities for confusion and misunderstanding not just for policy-makers and the public, but among the experts within the IPCC itself (Risbey & Kandlikar, 2007).
It seems clear that in this particular case, for some reason most of the IPCC scientists were not able to achieve instant Truth, and so they had to manage their uncertainties. In this they had only modest success, as the leadership failed in its attempt to introduce a consistent methodology for uncertainty communication. The resultant ‘confusion and misunderstanding, not just for policy-makers and the public, but among the experts within the IPCC itself’ (Risbey and Kandlikar) may have been an important part of the cause of the subsequent debacle. Since there was no common language for uncertainties, the ‘evangelical scientists’ at CRU who had (they believed) really achieved Truth could not be subjected to incisive critical review by colleagues.
It could be that adopting a system like NUSAP or its adaptation in the Dutch ‘Guidance’, which has the flexibility to accommodate different fields but which enables communication of key information about uncertainty across disciplines, would help to avoid similar disasters, at least until such time as Science achieves instant Truth in this area as in so many others. Jeroen van der Sluijs and colleagues have already shown how this can be done, in special cases of climate and environmental science.
Whether a ‘Tower of Babel’ situation for uncertainties is useful, as Ha-Duong et al believe, is something on which opinions can differ. Webster is correct in prioritising uncertainty management over ‘consensus’ for a rehabilitation of the science. His recommendations for clarity can be achieved through NUSAP, and the distinctions he cites can easily be expressed in a Pedigree matrix when appropriate.
Jerome Ravetz says:
“It seems clear that in this particular case, for some reason most of the IPCC scientists were not able to achieve instant Truth, and so they had to
managemassage their uncertainties.”More accurate, no?
The plain fact is that these promoters of catastrophic AGW have been gaming the system at every opportunity, enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else, including other scientists and the taxpaying public. These devious insiders include the UN/IPCC, Al Gore, the CRU, Rajendra Pachauri, Michael Mann and his U.S. cronies, GISS, James Hansen, NOAA, and everyone else who is part and parcel of the conspiracy to subvert truth in the pursuit of money and status. These people covet their funding far more than scientific truth.
Science in general suffers due to the $billions being diverted into climate “studies” year after year. As is now clear, the CAGW game is only a facade for true incompetents like Phil Jones, who admits to having lost mountains of data while accepting mountains of funding [depending on what he admits to on any particular day].
This dishonest clique of climate insiders is running a scam, no more and no less. And ‘Truth’ has nothing to do with it, because the truth is not in them.
Scientist = New age Druid.
Let me make it plain, I know climate scientists who are working on the oceans, and on the ‘climate sensitivity’. They have high competence and total integrity, and much of their work consists of managing the inherent and severe uncertainties in their materials and products. They are not ‘climate insiders’ and they do not pretend to have Truth; but they do believe that honest, reflexive work can eventually be useful for policy. I believe that such scientists are the great majority. That’s why I have distinguished them from the ‘evangelists’ and the ‘stealth advocates’.
Some of my critics still seem to believe that Scientific Truth is out there for collecting, like Isaac Newton’s pebbles on the beach. I know how that happens, for scientific education is (as Thomas S. Kuhn observed) as dogmatic as orthodox theology. For years on end, students only see problems that have just one solution, precise to three digits. Uncertainty is either reduced to error-bars or ignored. So when real, irreducible uncertainties are confronted, such scientists lack the tools for coping. It was to help remedy that bad situation that my colleagues and I developed NUSAP and Post-Normal Science. I’m not surprised that lots of people believe that I am betraying the ideals of science, because they have learned them in a very brittle form.
re Jerome Ravetz: June 15, 2010 at 8:15 am
With all due respect, that’s a load of hogwash. It simply creates another level of abstract confusion that removes the possibility of communicating anything useful to the the ultimate ‘paying stakeholders’ in all of this, namely the general public. NUSAP, and Pedigree matrices?? Sure thing! Every Afghan taxi driver knows all about those. Give me a break!
The languages of the planet, and in particular the English language, are replete with common words and phrases that are perfectly adequate for communicating uncertainty. In the case of ‘climate science’, the most useful of these phrases is: “We don’t know much for sure, but it doesn’t appear to be anything worrisome.”. There is little difficulty involved in understanding the notion that the world has gotten warmer by (at most) 0.007°C per year during the past 100 years or so. If we are fortunate, this will continue.
/dr.bill
The Hulme paper did not say that only a few dozen climate scientists agree with the IPCC claims on global warming. It said, “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; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.”. That’s why Hulme has released a correction to the reports like Solomon’s that have misrepresented what he said,
http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Correcting-reports-of-the-PiPG-paper.pdf
“Various newspaper and internet blogs are reporting me as saying that the IPCC has ‘misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming’ whereas in fact only ‘a few dozen experts’ did so…First, I did not say the ‘IPCC misleads’ anyone – it is claims that are made by other commentators, such as the caricatured claim I offer in the paper, that have the potential to mislead.”
That the 2500 or so climate scientists agreed with AGW was not disputed; what Hulme was saying is that there are only a few dozen at best experts in any particular field within climate science who are qualified to make a judgement on a particular specialty. Having 2500 climate scientists support the claim that “human activities are having a significant influence on the climate” is less meaningful when most are not “experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies”. But Hulme never said those 2500 scientists didn’t support the claim; he was questioning the relevance of the support.
Claiming “The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” and that Hulme’s paper supported that conclusion, is a lie.
Jerome Ravetz,
You appear to be re-framing the discussion. I specifically referred to individuals and organizations, and I stand by my statement @0845 above. If you need examples I can provide them.
When you write that climate scientists “…have high competence and total integrity,” I assume you are referring to only a few individuals that you personally know, even though at first glance it appears you are defending the status quo. Are you?
anyway 2500 is too round a number for me … almost flippant, where’s the list?
To: Smokey
I know only a few personally, but from their discussions of their work I could see that they operate in a colleague community with similar high standards. I have no problem with corruption in science, ever since I wrote about the Mohole project in 1963. I would guess that the quality in climate-science research is as variable as anywhere else, probably somewhat less on average because of all the hype. As to the leaders and insiders that you mention, it seems clear that something is very wrong there. As I have said before, what I find particularly interesting about Climategate is that the corruption was not the result of outside pressures from industry or government, but was self-induced. This is quite common in politics, but to the best of my knowledge not so common in science. I am still sorting it all out, along with the history of my own opinions about it.
These days the media likes to make superstars out of all sorts of odd categories of profession. We have superstar chefs, superstar gardeners, superstar investment pundits, you name it. A few of the climate clique decided they fancied some of the action. The more outrageous the claims, the more the media lapped it up. The stardom rubbed off on the employing institutions too. Universities vied with each other to become ‘Global Warming Central’. Stanford, in particular, because it already had links with NASA built up it’s climate careerists. Superstar Stephen Schneider, a retinue of climate commentators, corporate promoters, legal eagles specialising in environmental issues and so on.
The momentum of all this carried the ‘scientists’ on whom all the other hangers on depend for their continued professional raison d’etre to dizzy new heights of massive grant money acquisitions, aided and abetted by their university pro deans and vice chancellors, in the newly competitive world of privately financed higher education.
Now they are in so deep they cannot, will not, see that as old uncle Albert said, it only takes one fact to demolish a scientific theory. They have wriggled and spun, decieved and exaggerated, dissembled and ignored, vilified and threatened to keep the gravy train from being derailed.
Such is the debilitating effect outside influence has on scientific truth and the progress of knowledge. Science needs to be separated from those who see it as a means to an end other than the pursuit of understanding. Unfortunately for the superstars, this is the end of the line.
Jerome Ravetz,
Thank you for that post. Maybe we aren’t as far apart in our views as I had suspected.
One thing I firmly believe, and for which there is massive evidence, is that money has completely corrupted climate science. In order to keep the grant money flowing, a relatively small clique has acted as gatekeepers to the professional journals. The message has been made clear: support the CAGW message or you will have a difficult, if not impossible chance to be published. The only ones somewhat exempt are those of Prof Lindzen’s stature; refusing to publish a paper by the head of MIT’s atmospheric sciences department would raise eyebrows.
But thousands of younger, lesser known scientists get the message: play ball, or go hungry. It is a stark choice, and for those with families it isn’t even a choice.
To make matters much worse, outside NGOs and quangos provide grants that are only thinly disguised payola. Witness the recent $1,800,000 payoff given to Michael Mann, ostensibly for a study of mosquito vectors. If the granting organization was truly interested in a mosquito study, they would have directed about one-tenth the money to a biologist or an epidemiologist, rather than a geologist, and received a better study. But what they were doing was sending a very public message showing which side gets the money.
Further, those outside entities work at cross purposes to the interests of the taxpayers. By funneling grants only to those promoting CAGW, they are locking in those opinions; the same scientists cannot then turn around and give the taxpaying public an honest assessment.
Outside money, from both government and NGOs, has thoroughly corrupted climate science. Those entities have a pro-CAGW agenda [and most have a world government agenda], and honest science only gets in the way. Ending the system of grant giving in favor of straight salaried jobs is the answer. But that is practically impossible when both the grantors and the grantees, and their university employers, all favor the current system. So climate science is corrupted, while other more legitimate sciences are starved of needed funding, and the public is made to believe that “carbon” is evil.
There are no new relevations here, and the claims quoted by Hulme are not those made by the IPCC, but by other media commentators. The strength of the concensus lies not in the number of active researchers working on detection and atribution, which is of course a small proportion of climate scientists, but in (a) the opinion of other qualified people who find the conclusions and supporting evidence convincing, all the surveys show that this is a large majority, and that the proportion rises as the specialism approaches active climate researcher, and (b) the proportion of published studies that either support or are consistent with the concensus statement. In this area the proportion approaches unanimity.
A small proportion of biologists actively research Darwinian evolution, still it is not ‘phoney’, an ‘exaggeration’ nor ‘disingenous’ to assert that there is a concensus in the discipline in support of that theory ……
Next.
Smokey says:
June 15, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Witness the recent $1,800,000 payoff given to Michael Mann, ostensibly for a study of mosquito vectors.
The British solar research effort was recently gutted by a cut in funding of a similar amount.
It stinks.
Mike (4:22) is correct. I think folks are getting way too excited about this because of the headline. No one who knows anything about the IPCC has ever believed the line that 2500 scientists “agree” on every single paragraph — that has always been a political line made by advocates. At most, a few dozen specialists look at the particular topic — there are many, many topics covered in the IPCC reports, from the hard science, to impacts on ecology to economics. Furthermore, the IPCC reports are (supposed to be) a synthesis of the peer reviewed lit — as in what gets published in the accepted (not fringe) peer reviewed journals. Those in opposition to the synthesis given in the IPCC reports aren’t doing a very good job of taking the theory apart via the peer reviewed journals. If you can’t get it published in the journals, you haven’t made the case. Don’t make the case, don’t change what is reported by the IPCC. Attacks on op-ed pages and blogs make people happy but are really just noise.
When talking about animals and humans the antonym is “gracile.”
Noted. (The real criminals are the enablers.) However, hasn’t Patchy made that consensus claim, along with other key members of the IPCC cabal? And, regardless of the source, it’s worth rebutting.
What does it do to your argument that there was (and is still, mostly) “a consensus in the discipline” that the hockey stick correctly portrays the temperature record of the past millennium?
I always wondered if Hulme just might be the leaker.
dr.bill says:
June 15, 2010 at 1:13 am
re Wren: June 14, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Wren (seriously), I don’t understand how you can, on the one hand, repeatedly and relentlessly just skim the surface of anything ‘alarmist’ and then spend such large amounts of time in detailed nit-picking about anything ‘counter-alarmist’, while treating the rest of us as illiterate clods who can’t see beyond our noses.
Your post that I have referenced is a case in point. All of us have likely read the whole article, many of us before it appeared on WUWT, and we read entire sentences and paragraphs, and can generally do so without moving our lips. Newspapers don’t put everything into their headlines. They put what will catch people’s attention, and they often try to compress what they think is the gist of an article into that headline. Headlines are supposed to be short. Everyone on the planet knows that you have to read beyond the brief quotes and headlines.
Your analysis of the IPCC ‘concensus’ suffers from a trivial weakness of logic. In science fiction novels, for example, particularly those involving great quantities of minute description, a common symptom arises. If you ask a Biologist for an opinion of the novel, you often get an answer like: “Some errors in the Biology, but otherwise good.” Ask a Physicist, and you’ll get: “Some errors in the Physics, but otherwise good.”, and so on for the Chemists, Engineers, Geologists, Economists, and all the others.
The IPCC process suffers from the exact complement of this paradigm, and I cannot believe that you do not see this, because you are too articulate otherwise. If you have financial interests in the matter, then I can at least understand that. If that isn’t the case, then I simply don’t understand how you can write these things as if you believe them. You just don’t seem that dumb.
/dr.bill
—————
What is the profit in speculating on the motives and intelligence of people who post here?
Who is deep throat? We will take the sciences back for the common people.
There is no compromise
.
Kevin says:
June 15, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Those in opposition to the synthesis given in the IPCC reports aren’t doing a very good job of taking the theory apart via the peer reviewed journals. If you can’t get it published in the journals, you haven’t made the case.
Which is why the modus operandi has been to pressurize the editors of the journals and the reviewers to stay in line.
Read the climategate emails around the direct threats made by the Team against editors of prominent journals.
Are these the actions of reputable and responsible scientists?
Not much it would seem, and you do have a point. I let my interest in glaring incongruities get the better of my common sense for a moment. Sorry for the interruption. Carry on with your work. ☺
/dr.bill
Re Tallbloke (11:38) And yet, as I recall, the articles in question were published & those critical of components of the theory were noted in the IPCC reviews. The claims made in climategate look to me like bluster/boasting between people who didn’t really have the power to actually make it happen. The editors, when threatened by a “boycott” by a particular group, can always say “take a hike.” The editors who publish something that really rocks the prevailing view will indeed take heat, but if the article in question withstands close scrutiny, then the reputation of the journal will be enhanced. Getting anything published in the more prestigious journals is not easy — most submitted pieces are declined, regardless of the particular field of study. Based on what I see floating around the blogosphere as arguement against the prevailing components of the theory, there are few articles that are of high enough quality that would also have that big of an impact. The blogosphere is effective politically in nailing down a base, but until someone gets serious about finding the flaws in the big picture and making those points in the serious journals, the science will continue to annoy the heck out of you.
Also in reply to tallbloke — If I were coaching people on how to do this, I’d advise them to start by digging into the long development of the theory and then figuring out where they need to start to “unravel” it. I’d start with http://www.aip.org/history/climate/ which will drive you crazy — (forewarned is forearmed), but until this is done and people figure out the flaws in the basics (beyond “I don’t believe it.”, the focus on hockey sticks and such is a waste of time.
Kevin says:
June 16, 2010 at 9:45 am
Re Tallbloke (11:38) And yet, as I recall, the articles in question were published
That’s besides the point. The question I’ve asked, which you have gone to some trouble to avoid answering, is this:
“Are these the actions of reputable and responsible scientists?”
Global warming theory is a busted flush. The bewitched larch of Yamal, the Mann/Jones hockey sticks, the exaggerated claims of imminent glacier meltdown….
The onus is not on us to refute an unproven hypothesis, it is on them to support it with facts which are not so easily proven false.
Steve Mosher,
Well done one providing exactly the kind of misleading commentary Mike Hulme was warning about in the first place.
http://deepclimate.org/2010/06/15/mike-hulme-sets-solomon-and-morano-straight/
I trust you will prominently link to his public statement of clarification, correcting reports such as these.
http://deepclimate.org/2010/06/15/mike-hulme-sets-solomon-and-morano-straight/
Correction: second link should be http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Correcting-reports-of-the-PiPG-paper.pdf
Re Tallbloke: “Global warming theory is a busted flush.”
Not according to Mike Hulme, who ends his latest response to the distortion in the National Post…
“…And for the record … I believe that the warming of the climate system is unequivocal and that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
Mike Hulme, Norwich
16 June 2010”
http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Further-Clarification-of-my-Remarks.pdf
Will Steven Mosher be updating his post in an effort to correct conclusions to be drawn from the National Post’s misleading article, and thereby not mislead his readers in turn?
For Mike Hulme to say the the 2500 scientists consensus is disengenuous now, is Unbelievable!!
AS Mike Hulme ORGANISED sending the statements for a consensus back in 1997..
which pre-dates the uses of 2500 scientist mantra
The “2500 scientist’ thing seems to have only started around 2007, ands sounds like a press release or quote to the media, that got recycled..
It may have been based on this:
Scientists trying to push public policy.. (climategate emails)
Mike Hulme 1997:
“Reference: Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect
Global Climate
Dear Colleague,
Attached at the end of this email is a Statement, the purpose of which is
to bolster or increase governmental and public support for controls of
emissions of greenhouse gases in European and other industrialised
countries in the negotiations during the Kyoto Climate Conference in
December 1997. The Statement was drafted by a number of prominent European
scientists concerned with the climate issue, 11 of whom are listed after
the Statement and who are acting as formal sponsors of the Statement…….
……….We realize that you are very busy, but this action may have a very positive
influence on public discussions during the critical period leading up to
Kyoto and during the Conference itself.
With best wishes,
Michael Hulme, Climatic Research Unit, UEA, Norwich
Joseph Alcamo, University of Kassel, Germany”
sent and collated by Tim Mitchell – PHD student, at MIKE HULMES request?! (missing Tim the programmer – in Harry_read_me.txt
Tom Wrigley email response was devastingly critical:
“I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get
others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of
this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the
IPCC “view” when you say that “the latest IPCC assessment makes a
convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions.” .
“It is not IPCC’s role to make “convincing cases”
for any particular policy option; nor does it. However, most IPCC readers
would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the
emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper. This is contrary to your
statement.”
“This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a
dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is
apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed,
balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not
be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted.
In issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their
personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others
when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their
scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.
People who endorse your letter will NOT have “carefully examined” the issue.
When scientists color the science with their own PERSONAL views or make
categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such
statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what
they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is,
in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than
the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics, Michaels, Singer et al. I
find this extremely disturbing.
Tom Wigley”
There is a lot more criticism, see the full email below
(statement from Tom Wrigley’s response Mike Hulme, tim mitchell statement underneath )
—————————————————————————————————————-
From: Tom Wigley
To: jan.goudriaan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, grassl_h@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Klaus Hasselmann klaus.hasselmann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
Jill Jaeger , rector@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, oriordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, uctpa84@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
john@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mparry@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pier.vellinga@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: ATTENTION. Invitation to influence Kyoto.
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:52:09 -0700 (MST)
Reply-to: Tom Wigley
Cc: Mike Hulme , t.mitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Eleven,
I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get
others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of
this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the
IPCC “view” when you say that “the latest IPCC assessment makes a
convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions.” In contrast
to the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter, IPCC WGIII SAR and TP3
review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presenting
arguments in support of both “immediate control” and the spectrum of more
cost-effective options. It is not IPCC’s role to make “convincing cases”
for any particular policy option; nor does it. However, most IPCC readers
would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the
emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper. This is contrary to your
statement.
This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a
dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is
apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed,
balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not
be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In
issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their
personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others
when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their
scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.
Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal
views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No
scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever
endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully
themselves. You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just
this! I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief
that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science
— when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords
with IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on
the subject.
Let me remind you of the science. The issue you address is one of the
timing of emissions reductions below BAU. Note that this is not the same
as the timing of action — and note that your letter categorically
addresses the former rather than the latter issue. Emissions reduction
timing is epitomized by the differences between the Sxxx and WRExxx
pathways towards CO2 concentration stabilization. It has been clearly
demonstrated in the literature that the mitigation costs of following an
Sxxx pathway are up to five times the cost of following an equivalent
WRExxx pathway. It has also been shown that there is likely to be an
equal or greater cost differential for non-Annex I countries, and that the
economic burden in Annex I countries would fall disproportionately on
poorer people.
Furthermore, since there has been no credible analysis of the benefits
(averted impacts) side of the equation, it is impossible to assess fully
the benefits differential between the Sxxx and WRExxx stabilization
profiles. Indeed, uncertainties in predicting the regional details of
future climate change that would arise from following these pathways, and
the even greater uncertainties that attend any assessment of the impacts
of such climate changes, preclude any credible assessment of the relative
benefits. As shown in the WRE paper (Nature v. 379, pp. 240-243), the
differentials at the global-mean level are so small, at most a few tenths
of a degree Celsius and a few cm in sea level rise and declining to
minuscule amounts as the pathways approach the SAME target, that it is
unlikely that an analysis of future climate data could even distinguish
between the pathways. Certainly, given the much larger noise at the
regional level, and noting that even the absolute changes in many
variables at the regional level remain within the noise out to 2030 or
later, the two pathways would certainly be indistinguishable at the
regional level until well into the 21st century.
The crux of this issue is developing policies for controlling greenhouse
gas emissions where the reductions relative to BAU are neither too much,
too soon (which could cause serious economic hardship to those who are
most vulnerable, poor people and poor countries) nor too little, too late
(which could lead to future impacts that would be bad for future
generations of the same groups). Our ability to quantify the economic
consequences of “too much, too soon” is far better than our ability to
quantify the impacts that might arise from “too little, too late” — to
the extent that we cannot even define what this means! You appear to be
putting too much weight on the highly uncertain impacts side of the
equation. Worse than this, you have not even explained what the issues
are. In my judgment, you are behaving in an irresponsible way that does
you little credit. Furthermore, you have compounded your sin by actually
putting a lie into the mouths of innocents (“after carefully examining the
question of timing of emissions reductions, we find the arguments against
postponement to be more compelling”). People who endorse your letter will
NOT have “carefully examined” the issue.
When scientists color the science with their own PERSONAL views or make
categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such
statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what
they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is,
in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than
the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics, Michaels, Singer et al. I
find this extremely disturbing.
Tom Wigley
On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Tim Mitchell wrote:
> Reference: Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect
> Global Climate
>
> Dear Colleague,
>
> Attached at the end of this email is a Statement, the purpose of which is
> to bolster or increase governmental and public support for controls of
> emissions of greenhouse gases in European and other industrialised
> countries in the negotiations during the Kyoto Climate Conference in
> December 1997. The Statement was drafted by a number of prominent European
> scientists concerned with the climate issue, 11 of whom are listed after
> the Statement and who are acting as formal sponsors of the Statement.
>
> ***** The 11 formal sponsors are: *****
>
> Jan Goudriaan Hartmut Grassl Klaus Hasselmann Jill Jäger
> Hans Opschoor Tim O’Riordan Martin Parry David Pearce
> Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber Wolfgang Seiler Pier Vellinga
>
> After endorsements from many hundreds of other European climate-related
> scientists are collected (and we hope that you agree to be one of these), the
> Statement will be brought to the attention of key decision-makers (e.g. EU
> Kyoto negotiaters and Environment Ministers) and other opinion-makers in
> Europe (e.g. editorial boards of newspapers) during the week beginning 24th
> November. The UK and other European WWF offices have agreed to assist in
> this activity, although the preparation of the Statement itself has in no
> way been initiated or influenced by WWF or any other body. This is an
> initiative taken by us alone and supported by our 11 Statement sponsors.
>
> WHAT WE ASK FROM YOU
>
> We would very much like you to endorse this Statement. Unfortunately, at
> this time we can no longer take into account any suggested modifications.
> Nevertheless, we hope that it reflects your views closely enough so that
> you can support it. If you agree with the Statement, then:
>
> 1. PLEASE IMMEDIATELY FILL OUT the form below and either reply via email
> (preferably) or telefax (only if necessary) to the indicated fax number.
> Replies received after Wednesday 19th November will not be included. If
> replying by email please do not use the ‘reply all’ option. If this
> invitation has been forwarded from a colleague, please make sure your reply
> is directed to the originators of this invitation, namely:
> t.mitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx (on behalf of Mike Hulme and Joe Alcamo).
>
> 2. We have identified about 700 climate-related scientists in Europe who
> are receiving this email directly from us. If you feel it is appropriate,
> PLEASE FORWARD THIS MESSAGE to up to three colleagues in your country who
> are working in climate-related fields, who you think may support the
> Statement and whom we have not targeted. To identify colleagues whom we
> have already invited you can examine the email address list we have used
> for your country in the email header (or else appended to the end of this
> email).
>
> We realize that you are very busy, but this action may have a very positive
> influence on public discussions during the critical period leading up to
> Kyoto and during the Conference itself.
>
> With best wishes,
>
> Michael Hulme, Climatic Research Unit, UEA, Norwich
> Joseph Alcamo, University of Kassel, Germany
>
> (On behalf of the other signatories of the Statement)
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
> I agree to have my name placed on the list of scientists that endorse the
> Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect Global
> Climate.
>
> Full Title and Name
>
> Affiliation Country
>
> Signature (for fax replies only)
>
> Date
>
> Other comments:
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
> We would prefer you to return this email message to us by email, having
> duly completed the form above. You should be sending the form to:
>
> ****************************
> ** **
> ** t.mitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx **
> ** **
> ****************************
>
> If you would rather not use the email reply function, then please print out
> the form above and fax it (filled in) to:
>
> “Attention: European Climate Statement”
> Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia
> Telefax: +44 1603 507784
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect Global Climate
> =============================================================================
>
> In 1992, the nations of the world took a significant step to protect global
> climate by signing the Framework Convention on Climate Change. This year,
> at the coming Climate Summit in Kyoto*, they have the chance to take
> another important step. It is our belief that the nations of the world
> should agree to substantive action for controlling the growth of greenhouse
> gas emissions.
>
> Our opinion is bolstered by the latest assessment of scientific knowledge
> carried out by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The
> IPCC reported that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human
> influence on global climate”. They also gave examples of observed climate
> change up to now, including:
>
> · Global mean surface air temperature has increased by between 0.3 to 0.6
> degrees Celsius since the late 19th century, and recent years have been the
> warmest since 1860.
> · Global sea level has risen between 10 and 25 centimeters over the past
> 100 years.
>
> Based on estimates from computer models, the IPCC also maintained that
> humanity will have a continuing and cumulative effect on climate in the
> future. Future society may find that some climate impacts are positive, as
> in the possible increase in rainfall and crop yield in some dry regions;
> and society may be able to adapt to some impacts, such as by building dikes
> against rising sea level. But many, if not most, climate impacts will
> increase risks to society and nature, and will be irreversible on the human
> time scale. Among the possible changes are further increases in sea level,
> the transformation of forest and other ecosystems, modifications of crop
> yield, and shifts in the geographic range of pests and pathogens. It is
> also possible that infrequent but disastrous events, such as droughts and
> floods, could occur more often in some regions. At particular risk are
> people living on arid or semi-arid land, in low-lying coastal areas and
> islands, in water-limited or flood-prone regions, or in mountainous
> regions. The risk to nature will be significant in the many areas where
> ecosystems cannot quickly adapt to changing climate, or where they are
> already under stress from environmental pollution or other factors.
>
> Because of these risks, we consider it important for nations to set limits
> on the increase of global temperature due to human interference with the
> climate system. We recommend that European and other industrialized nations
> use such long-term climate protection goals as a guide to determining
> short-term emission targets. This approach has been adopted, for example,
> by the European Union and the Alliance of Small Island States.
>
> Some may say that action to control emissions should be postponed because
> of the scientific uncertainties of climate change and its impact. Our view
> is that the risks and irreversibility of many climate impacts require
> “precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent, or minimize the causes of
> climate change”, as stated in the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
>
> We also acknowledge that economic arguments have been put forward for
> postponing the control of emissions in Europe and elsewhere. However, after
> carefully examining the question of timing of emission reductions, we find
> the arguments against postponement to be more compelling. First, postponing
> action could shift an unfair burden for more severe reductions of emissions
> onto future generations. Second, it will lead to a greater accumulation of
> greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and hence make it more difficult to
> prevent future climate change when action is finally taken. Third, the
> latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for immediate
> control of emissions.
>
> Rather than delay, we strongly urge governments in Europe and other
> industrialized countries to agree to control greenhouse emissions as part
> of a Kyoto agreement. Some controls can be achieved by reducing fossil fuel
> use at little or no net cost through accelerated improvements in the
> efficiency of energy systems, the faster introduction of renewable energy
> sources, and the reduction of subsidies for fossil fuel use. Moreover,
> reducing the use of fossil fuels will also reduce local and regional air
> pollution, and their related impacts on human health and ecosystems.
>
> We believe that the European Union (EU) proposal is consistent with long
> term climate protection. This proposal would reduce key greenhouse gas
> emissions by 15% from industrialized countries (so-called Annex I
> countries) by the year 2010 (relative to year 1990). Although stronger
> emission reductions will be needed in the future, we see the EU, or
> similar, goal as a positive first step “to prevent dangerous anthropogenic
> interference with the climate system” and to lessen risks to society and
> nature. Such substantive action is needed now.
>
> *Third Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate
> Change, Kyoto, Japan, December, 1997.
>
> Signed:
>
> Jan Goudriaan Hartmut Grassl Klaus Hasselmann
> Jill Jäger Hans Opschoor Tim O’Riordan
> Martin Parry David Pearce Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber
> Wolfgang Seiler Pier Vellinga
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> ** This message originated from the
> ** Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
> ** It was sent out by
> ** Mike Hulme and Tim Mitchell on behalf of the 11 key signatories.
> ** If you object to being on this email address list,
> ** please accept our apologies and inform us;
> ** we will then remove your address from the list.
> ** Please direct any comments to:
> ** t.mitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> ************************************************************************
>
> The list below consists of the people with UK email addresses to whom this
> message has been sent:
>
> all CRU staff
I left out all the signaturies: find it here:
http://www.climate-gate.org/index.php
search for:
Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect
J Bowers: June 17, 2010 at 3:29 am
Hmmm, there’s a squadron of pigs lined up outside my window ready to take off.
@KenB
“Now exactly where is the apology, the mea culpa of all those that used that big lie to ignore the damage that had been done to science, put their head in the sand, fingers firmly in their ears while they poured scorn on sceptics who dared speak up.”
Excellent point. I am also waiting for Solomon’s reply for the libelous misrepresentation of Hulme’s views. You are absolutely right to point out the damage to science caused by this scurrilous attack on scientific process and integrity.
Barry Woods: June 17, 2010 at 5:50 am
Yada yada yada …
Sheesh mate, that post is oh so passe.
Unsurprisingly, chirping of
hypocritescrickets … deafening.