Barry Woods writes via email:
A very interesting article, with Mike Hulme dissing the 97% paper along the way.
But I think perhaps the most interesting part, is it seems to allow sceptics at the policy table.
“What matters is not whether the climate is changing (it is); nor whether human actions are to blame (they are, at the very least partly and, quite likely, largely); nor whether future climate change brings additional risks to human or non-human interests (it does). As climate scientist Professor Myles Allen said in evidence to the committee, even the projections of the IPCC’s more prominent critics overlap with the bottom end of the range of climate changes predicted in the IPCC’s published reports.…The now infamous paper by John Cook and colleagues published in May 2013 claimed that of the 4,000 peer-reviewed papers they surveyed expressing a position on anthropogenic global warming, “97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming”. But merely enumerating the strength of consensus around the fact that humans cause climate change is largely irrelevant to the more important business of deciding what to do about it. By putting climate science in the dock, politicians are missing the point.…In the end, the only question that matters is, what are we going to do about it? Scientific consensus is not much help here. Even if one takes the Cook study at face value, then how does a scientific consensus of 97.1% about a fact make policy-making any easier? As Roger Pielke Jr has often remarked in the context of US climate politics, it’s not for a lack of public consensus on the reality of human-caused climate change that climate policy implementation is difficult in the US.”
Perhaps I’m reading too much into it, but if Mike Hulme thinks Cook 97% is nonsense AND pointless, this will be noticed. Source:
https://theconversation.com/science-cant-settle-what-should-be-done-about-climate-change-22727
============================================================
With climate skeptics thought of as ‘credible’, the SkS kidz will have an aneurism.
And then there’s this: John Cook is a Filthy Liar
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My take-away of M.H.’s remarks is that he thinks “prominent critics” of the IPCC agree with the climate change projections, climate change is bad, governments can alter the future, and should, so let’s get on with it. Business as usual in the CAGW camp.
This is most telling: “What matters is not whether the climate is changing (it is); nor whether human actions are to blame (they are, at the very least partly and, quite likely, largely); …”
His mind is made up and the politicians have to tell us what to do about it. If they tell us to do nothing, well, it’s all their fault and we shall all cook like the frog in the slow boil.
as with most, he incorrectly believes that Mankind is in control of the ‘solution’ to the ‘problem’. If you have such a mindset, it is obviously a political solution since the underlying science is settled and all that remains is to decide what (yes, if anything) to do about it. It’s just more of a throwing up of the hands, fatalistic, we’re doomed point of view.
“As Roger Pielke Jr has often remarked in the context of US climate politics, it’s not for a lack of public consensus on the reality of human-caused climate change that climate policy implementation is difficult in the US.”
So even the ones who don’t agree with what we have said can be said to agree with our position!
It’s not the first time that Mike Hulme has turned his guns on Cook et al. There’s this:
“The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in Anderegg et al.’s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?”
http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/07/23/whats-behind-the-battle-of-received-wisdoms/#comment-182401
Prof Hulme obviously has no time for the SkS crowd, although it seems Mann likes them.
He is not putting doubt on the 97% figure, only the importance of it in furthering the alarmist’s aims. He is suggesting that it is so obviously self evidently true, that it must no longer be questioned, and even if questioned, policy should now urgently be taken upon the assumption of it being true.
The telling quote for me is the following:
“By putting climate science in the dock, politicians are missing the point [.…] In the end, the only question that matters is, what are we going to do about it?”
So it matters not if it is true or not? The alarmist scientists are done with trying to prove it, we must accept it on nothing more than blind faith before the earth cools anymore and further falsifies their CAGW hypothesis, and get on with implementing the alarmist’s cure.
In other words, sod the science, start the de-industrialisation and the destruction of industrial economies now. Truly, the argument of a human hating zealot.
Yes, you are reading too much into it. He does not say Cook’s 97% is nonsense. Or pointless. A bit of confirmation fantasy there.
Hulme doesn’t criticize Cook’s “methodology”. He’s perfectly fine with it. He essentially just says, this propaganda approach is not relevant for The Cause right now; how can we enforce the policies we planned? And he has no answer, that’s the good thing. Another failed NATO strategy.
Even if Mike Hulme had grave doubts about AGW, he would have to give lip service to AGW (as he has done) else he would be summarily removed from the debate. The removal of dissenters is necessary to maintain the appearance of consensus.
So I think Barry Woods and Anthony are onto something worthy of note here.
“Truly, the argument of a human hating zealot.”
A shame you finished with this silly rant. Up to then your post was quite reasonable.
“Yes, you are reading too much into it. He does not say Cook’s 97% is nonsense. Or pointless. A bit of confirmation fantasy there.”
I don’t think you’re looking closely enough. He calls the study “infamous,” and then goes on to say *EVEN* if one takes the Cook study at face value…”
Granted, he doesn’t explicitly call in “nonsense,” but he’s clearly implying something along those lines. Think you might have your own confirmation issues.
it’s a bid for position – he wants to be the drum major of the cagw parade – and he’s trashing his rivals.
this is a catfight.
I’ve written an extensive reply on my blog Scottish Sceptic: A reply to Mike Hulme
To summarise: thanks for trying to move the debate forward. But, science is more than just academia and whilst it is good that academia is beginning to realise it doesn’t have all the answers, the answer is not to hand over the problem to a group of largely scientifically illiterate politicians. You should realise that science does not stop at the gates of Universities and there are many outside who are very scientifically literate who academics are going to have to learn to trust on this subject.
Lets face it. A consensus does not make reality. The “paper” is not about science; it is a jeer with no scientific value whatsoever.
By their own hand it merely proves Kook & Co have no concept of how science works nor how peer review ought to function. Every “peer reviewer” has a dog in the same fight.
Gallileo faced a consensus. Guess who was empirically correct.
The global warming scam is far to lucrative a business to give up anytime soon. We now have extreme weather where once it was called winter and so on – yet few take on the media scam pushing the idea. Consequently the Obama administration are free to enact global warming junk without any oversight. Just ask Obama and his pen. They believe the consensus.
Jammy Dodger says:
February 4, 2014 at 10:13 am
Yes, you are reading too much into it. He does not say Cook’s 97% is nonsense. Or pointless. A bit of confirmation fantasy there.
———————
“The now infamous paper by John Cook and colleagues published in May 2013”
As mr Hulme refers to the paper as “infamous” instead of “famous”, I would think most sensible people would infer from that that he thinks it is nonsense and pointless.
I agree with what many are seeing here – Hulme is saying, “Who cares about such detail? Let’s move on and do what we have to do.”
No change, just another dismissal of skeptical argument.
He is a thoughtful guy, Hulme. I don’t agree with his views on climate change, but he is well worth listening to. Take this, for example, when discussing the value of consensus (he doesn’t rate it). On the Climategate e-mails, of which more than a few were his, he says:
“…they showed a scientific culture which was closed to criticism and which was resistant to the opensharing of data. When these practices were publicly exposed, the tenacity of scientists’ defence of in-group/out-group boundaries paradoxically weakened the public authority of climate science rather than strengthened it. The outcome was the exact opposite of what climate scientists in CRU and elsewhere thought they were doing”.
http://www.academia.edu/3003822/Lessons_from_the_IPCC_do_scientific_assessments_need_to_be_consensual_to_be_authoritative
The rest of his talk, of which that is an extract, is very interesting. I don’t agree with all of it, but having said that, I think Hulme has got ideas that add to the debate in a proper way, unlike Mann or Jones, who are worthless, in my view.
While he seems to think the study is ridiculous, he does not come out and say the study is junk. He should have, but I guess baby steps.
I think that most reasonable thinking people would agree that our use of hydrocarbon fuels (fossil and otherwise) is causing CO2 to increase in the atmosphere and that this in turn may have caused a tiny increase (~0.3%) in the global average air temperature over the past 100 years or so, but so what?
Isn’t increasing CO2 (the life-enabling trace gas) in the atmosphere a good thing? Suppose that CO2 were decreasing; that would be something to be concerned about!
And, isn’t a little warming a good thing? Suppose the lower atmosphere were cooling; suppose we were headed back into an ice age; that would be something to be concerned about!
“By putting climate science in the dock, politicians are missing the point [.…] In the end, the only question that matters is, what are we going to do about it?”
If the indisputable law of photosynthesis and key role of carbon dioxide, with its incredible benefits to our biosphere and world food production(for all animals). were given proper weight…………give CO2 the Nobel Peace prize!
Take away the one that climate snake oil salesman Al Gore got and give it to the molecule that’s greatly enriching our planets vegetative health by atmospheric fertilization.
The warming thus far?
Also beneficial.
Future “catastrophic warming? Still just a theory based on global climate model output that has proven to be MUCH too warm.
Nature has been screaming loudly about what to do(and not do). The problem is that much of the world doesn’t speak that language. They have been indoctrinated into the faith of global warming religion and listen only to the high priests words.
Hitler would have admired the way that so many humans on our planet were so brainwashed with the idiotic notion that CO2=pollution..
Don’t think he regards the consensus as “nonsense”, just that it does not matter. On this point, I tend to agree as science does not work as a function of consensus. As Einstein noted with regards to any theory, only take one experiment to prove the theory wrong.
I think you are misreading this. He says that the “97%” consensus pales compared to the task of ruining the world economy, impoverishing the poor further and destroying western democracies to prevent the mythical global disaster. The man wants action now.
I, too, believe you are reading too much into it. He seems to agree with the 97% figure, but claims that Cook’s study was poorly done, and, more to the point, detracts from the real issue, which he believes is: “In the end, the only question that matters is, what are we going to do about it?”
Of course, Mike Hulme is absolutely wrong in making that statement. There are several more important questions that need to be answered first. The most important question is: What is the human influence on climate change? Followed by, Is the human influence a good thing or a bad thing? Then comes: Can we realistically and effectively do anything about it? Then: Should we do anything about it? Before we finally get to: What are we going to do about it?
The whole global warming debate, for the last 25 years, has been about quantifying the human impact on climate. It is the question that skeptics want to talk about and warmists dodge like a bullet. It is the question that must be answered before any of the following questions can be wisely addressed. It would be very unwise to act on the issue when there is such great uncertainty in climate sensitivity to CO2.
Mike Hulme and all others calling for action are being very foolish.
This is a very modest repositioning. ‘They’ have finally realised that ‘we’ do not dispute the climate changes or that human activity has a part in that change. Which is what is measured in Cook’s.
There is still the assertion that “climate change brings additional risks to human or non-human interests (it does).” If risks became ‘changes’ it would make me feel like ‘we’ are making headway.
When a statement like “more important business of deciding what to do about it” has “if anything” appended to it I will feel like ‘we’ are making headway.
As the catastrophic nature of the changes come more into question either because the rate of change slows or stops or because dire warnings (like the climate refugees or the desertification or SE England or the ice free arctic in 2013 or snow being a thing of the past) don’t come to pass, look for more semantic revisionism. The ultimate position can only be “we gave the facts as we saw them at the time. We didn’t make the policy based on those facts. The fact that your lights are going out if the wind doesn’t blow, or blows too fast, is not our fault. Look to the policy makers”
Then the post-mortem on how the figures were presented to determine whether there is culpability can be had. A futile exercise because even scientific papers are littered with mights and coulds and within % certainty levels. Weasel words that look like they are designed to avoid litigation.
In short and in answer to Anthony’s question. I think this weakens the position of an already weak paper but is no cause for celebration yet.
That one should say the 97% consensus is irrelevant is one thing, but the real truth is that this 97% consensus is a complete fabrication and that is quite relevant. The trouble with propaganda is that most people accept it as truth.