Top British boffin: Time to ditch the climate consensus
Don’t use science to get round politics, says Hulme
EXCERPTS:
Interview Just two years ago, Mike Hulme would have been about the last person you’d expect to hear criticising conventional climate change wisdom. Back then, he was the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, an organisation so revered by environmentalists that it could be mistaken for the academic wing of the green movement. Since leaving Tyndall – and as we found out in a telephone interview – he has come out of the climate change closet as an outspoken critic of such sacred cows as the UN’s IPCC, the “consensus”, the over-emphasis on scientific evidence in political debates about climate change, and to defend the rights of so-called “deniers” to contribute to those debates.
As Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia, Hulme remains one of the UK’s most distinguished and high-profile climate scientists.
…
He treats climate change not as a problem that we need to solve – indeed, he believes that the complexity of the issue means that it cannot be solved, only lived with – and instead considers it as much of a cultural idea as a physical phenomenon.”
…
When we spoke to him on the phone, Hulme cited as evidence the 2007 protests against Heathrow’s third runway, where marchers made their case by waving a research paper at the TV cameras under a banner bearing the slogan “We are armed only with peer reviewed science”.
…
Read the complete story here in the Register: Top British boffin: Time to ditch the climate consensus
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Peter, if history is any teacher at all, discourse and verbal persuasion gained precious few battle victories and won even fewer wars. And if wars ended because of discourse and verbal persuasion, peace has always been a fragile demilitarized zone. When push comes to shove, I shove back.
Interesting:
“He treats climate change not as a problem that we need to solve – indeed, he believes that the complexity of the issue means that it cannot be solved, only lived with – and instead considers it as much of a cultural idea as a physical phenomenon.”
– – –
Leon Brozyna (09:54:04) “[…] he […] can expect to become yet another target for ad hominem attacks. […] he should not be surprised when it turns on him as well (as he is already apparently aware).”
The sensible thing to do will be to weather it objectively.
Appearances suggest that a lot of the folks who appear to be supporting AGW do not actually believe in it.
– – –
Climate Heretic (11:55:56) “[…] Matthews asserting that if you believe in God you cannot be trusted on science issues? […] I find it disturbing because this is the problem with the politics involved in science and how science is taken hostage of ideology.”
When I see comments like this, it reinforces my view that the whole debate is (painfully slowly, perhaps) approaching a neutralized state. If one takes a multi-dimensional view, it almost can’t end up anywhere but neutralized — there’s just too much discord – and some of it is fierce.
– – –
Pamela Gray (15:05:28) “[…] if history is any teacher at all, discourse and verbal persuasion gained precious few battle victories and won even fewer wars. […] When push comes to shove, I shove back.”
Interesting. Part of what caused me to take a serious second look at the whole climate change issue was the following pair of questions:
Looking a few steps ahead, can this:
a) undermine the public’s trust in science?
b) lead to a war?
After quickly coming up with “yes” & “yes”, it seemed sensible to expect to see the debate neutralize itself (since sensible people will be on the case, raising the game) and eventually become differentiated from the issue of pollution.
– – –
Pragmatic (09:33:37) “The accusation has merit when discussing real toxic pollutants. It has zero merit when applied to man-made CO2.”
Toxic Pollution = Bad
This I have no problem being explicit about.
– – –
dhogaza (12:08:02) “People, he’s not talking about the scientific consensus among climate scientists. He’s talking about *political* consensus.”
An interesting research topic would be:
Trends in attitudes towards & use of the word “consensus”.
(If anyone knows of any quality links, please share.)
Enlighten me if I’ve totally misunderstood, but it appears to me that this guy is saying: “Don’t rely upon the scientific argument” … “The sociological, philosophical and enviromental arguments are what’s important”
Have I missed something? Everyone appears to be swooning over this guy’s “reasonablness” but I understand him to be stating that the global warming argument is not about science; he is taking a position of unreason.
An English blog I council philosophers to read is “Climate Resistance” which covers many of the political, philosophical and sociological aspects of the global warming scam in the UK.
http://www.climate-resistance.org
Sorry, I’m watching the video. This guy is responsible for running one of the most hysteric organisations and now dissembles.
Note he uses the term “climate change” when we all know he, and his ilk, are postulating catastrophic global warming. We must hold these slime-bags’ feet to the fire of their rhetoric; not let them escape to the air conditionibng phrase of “climate change”.
When they say “climate change” they mean “Man Made Global Warming Through Burning Fossil Fuels”, which is a crap theory; absolutely no supporting evidence.
[Ad Hom warning]
So, NO!!! I do not pass this man accolades; I denounce a rank, hypocritical, self-interested, snake-oil salesman.
Tamara (10:37:17) : “You are right, it is facism. To maintain power they must preserve the “consensus” by avoiding debate and ridiculing or discrediting the opposition. We all know that we should fear “police states.” But police are just a manifestation of authority.”
[Sorry if I get too long-winded here (and if my English is bad).]
First. Thanks for your reply! My main point is that it is through discussion we can keep a civilized (and democratic) society. Discussion is also important in science (although in particular natural science (but I hope also other areas) must be conducted within a framework where the categories true and false exists and are a crucial quality which enables science).
You say a lot about a police state etc, but isn’t that to jump a few step forward into fantasy? (I hate Alex Jones and conspiracy theories, but it’s possible that our politicians will take not good decisions implying less real democracy, e.g. if we can’t divide science and politics, where politics is decisions in a societal and to some degree social framework, and science is an art in a wide range of well defined areas.)
Tamara: “Scientists/Academics also have power of authority, whch we must trust is supported by greater education and understanding.”
Anyway their authority isn’t relevant for politics! My main point, which is also Hulme’s main point, is that science has no political responsibility. Science shall not govern society. Scientist can have – and it’s good if the have – opinons in political matters and contribute in the common debate, but it’s not up to them to decide political path.
Tamara: “What is a NATIONAL Academy of Sciences?”
NAS is good (if your intention was tio discredit their competence), but NAS has not said what politicians should do! That’s a misinterpretation by Edward Markey, or more likely rhetorical tactics from him! Edward Markey takes “science” as an alibi for radical politics. Politics where politicians (as himself?) takes control. He may be concerned about climate too? I can’t say! One thing about Edward Markey is that he seems to be stupid. He said a year ago that Black Hawk Down in Somalia was the result of human global warming, and so was the Darfur conflict. Also Hurricane Katrina – of course!
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32291
Tamara: “If, as Markey suggests, science should take precedence over democratic ideals, then we must submit to a scientific dictatorship. Is that better than any other dictatorship?”
Your expressoin scientific dictatorshio — which I don’t think MArkey’s argument for the Waxman-Markey bill was — made me reflect on Science Fiction in which I guess science sometimes is idealized as “good” and capable of superior (non-democratic) political control. So a hypothesis this resulted in is that it may be a tendency among in particular engineers and scientists (???) to embrace scince as a political decision level…(?) (Well, this hypothesis may very well be b*llcr*p! 😉 )
The reason why political decisions by science is wrong I think Mike Hulme explains. Politics has to be discussed. Also scientific results — which are not at all aimed to define political solutions — has to be discussed (the whole practical scientific process, peer reviews etc). Discussion is a method to find the best rational solutions in politics — so let politicians do that!!! — and in science communication and discussion is a way to shape a more true description of the world we live in, basically in terms of cause and effect, or?
Scientist are not good politicians, but the thing with Edward Markey isn’t that he say they are. He says to us that scientists tells us we shall introduce Cap and Trade (ironically Hansen, the biggest alarmist and political scientist on Earth, don’t say that). But that’s a trick from Edward Markey, who is a “good politician” in the respect that he is good at rhetorics and to cheat the public. So is Al Gore. These politicians says scientists has pointed out an answer which equals their own suggestions of big government politics (which at least Gore will benifit hugely from…). NAS is only used by these politicians for their own purposes. NAS has to continue to say AGW is serious in their organisation’s political statements, otherwise they don’t think they will get money next year. The latter is a little detail. The big thing is if politicians uses the credentials of “science” (all scientific work on Earth), and with the false picture that science do not dispute things and says what politicians shall do argue that political debate mustn’t take place.
Edwards words “it was not a science based decision. It was strictly political” is really horrifying!
What’s the catch?
Or the implication of those words I mean is horrifying. The implications are that politics (discussion) cease to exist and are overthrown by The One Way that politicians say that science say that politicians shall do.
Tamara.
Let me clearify my positions too. I like the police, and I don’t think youtr word “police are just a manifestation of authority” has anything to do with this.
A second thing I should say about my position is that the discussion I prefer don’t mean that I like compromises and “in between”-solutions in everything. I think dialectics is kind of a problem. I want discussion because I want a civilized society, but I defend zero taxes and zero burdens on carbon dioxide, although I don’t think we’ll get there. I can however accept small taxes like those Lomborg suggests (but on national, not international, level). It wont hurt economy that bad and reduce energy consumption sligthly. But I can’t defend taxes on carbon dioxide. That’s my position.
Magnus A @17:12:25:
You mention the national Academy of Sciences (NAS).
NAS is good (if your intention was tio discredit their competence), but NAS has not said what politicians should do! That’s a misinterpretation by Edward Markey, or more likely rhetorical tactics from him! Edward Markey takes “science” as an alibi for radical politics
And, unstated, is that the NAS members will provide thew politicans with ther excuses, and will be very well paid in research dollars.
If the US goes over the cliff with Cap & Trade (Tax & Spill) it is because too many voices yelled “Fire” on a crowded planet, thereby letting the horses out of the barn and opening a Pandoarra’s Box of Massive Climate Alteration Nightmare Experiments.
Wiser heads are starting to prevail.
Mike Hulme appears to be sliding towards a side exit. Remember that the University of East Anglia has for decades been THE centre of global warming hysteria in the UK.
Re the US National Academy of Science (NAS). The North Committee reached strong conclusions that condemned Mann’s hockey stick, but the Committee Chairman, Dr. North, aggressively obscured those conclusions in his public statements. Dr. North displayed an appalling lack of objectivity, imo.
The Wegman Committee reached similar very negative conclusions about Mann-made global warming, and were far more forthright in their comments.
While I am by no means a scientist, I like to follow the science and I relish the chance to debate the issues surrounding AGW. To argue the position, or at least infer that CO2 is the primary cause of climate change is like taking a page right out of the “KISS” rule book.
The issue of increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere should not be the basis for a bureaucratic hijacking of our Energy, Economic and Tax policy. With current levels of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere being measured at 385 ppm, an increase of 100 ppm since the end of the “Little Ice Age” and a host of other variables and complex interactions that contribute to our climate, it is just too simplistic to hang the “Here’s your villain” tag around CO2.
But guess what?… There are a lot of people who have bought It! Such is the power of a simple message, the advocacy of a number of lobby groups and political constituencies and a well known face all working to push forward the agenda.
However, I feel confident that the science will eventually rule the day. Once water vapor and methane are given the proper focus as GHG contributers and the importance of CO2 to both plants on land and algae/plankton in our oceans is understood, then the fallacy will be exposed.
Carbon Dioxide is not the problem… it is just being used as a convenient scapegoat.
I just finished watching a National Geographic piece on the Liscombe Fossil Bone Bed. The bone bed was first discovered in 1961 on the Colville River on the north slopes of the Denali National Park in Alaska. The find dates back to the Late Cretaceous Period (50 million years ago) and contains the bones of numerous Troodons and further downriver, fossil remains of Hadrasaurs. The point being… how do cold-blooded reptiles exist in an Arctic environment?
The answer has nothing to do with hibernation of species that have no prior record of exhibiting such behavior. Study of the bones show no growth ring patterns that would indicate dormant periods similar to those of trees. The only conclusion made was that the species in question were indigenous to the region and well adapted to it’s temperate climate. That’s Right! “Temperate”. Which points to a planet and a polar region much warmer than it is today and as a consequence, a planet that had a much higher CO2 concentration than current measurements. The record from the Jurassic seems to support a more temperate planet with vast subtropical regions where CO2 concentrations measured as high as 6500 ppm.
Oh Yeah!… and Guess What?… the planet somehow managed to survive!
But remember!… the sky is falling and CO2 is the cause!
I think some data is being passed around outside of public scrutiny that has turned some heads. My guess is that it is from one of the hard sciences such as physics or astronomy. But who is to say? The climatologists may be sitting on a land mine.
Look away children and remember their example.
are we studying social conformity or climate?
oh, the sky is falling, I forgot to add that
Hulme: “If, say, Jim Hansen or Fred Singer and I sat down and looked at the same scientific evidence, we would come up with a very different set of proscriptions. Now, why is that? Is it because our scientific training is deficient, and he’s seeing more than I’m seeing, or I’m seeing more than he’s seeing? I don’t think it is. I think actually there’s a lot of stuff that’s going on here.”
The way I read it, Hulme is arguing from a “meta” perspective rather than about any specific matters of climate science. He is saying that the issue of climate change encompasses much more than the bare science – it also involves values, the sort of society we want to live in, and even our vision for the future of humanity.
In other words, climate change has become a proxy issue, in which many other battles besides the actual science are also being fought.
Most of the committed people on either side of the issue will have little difficulty in recognising the worldview of their opponents. However, they are often too busy shouting at each other to notice that both sides want essentially the same ends, but view the achievement of those ends from very different perspectives.
What to do? I’ve no idea, but a good start would be to find ways of framing the issue that recognise the similarities between both sides and enable them to seek common ground.
Ok, Brendan H, are you being rational today in order to win me over, cuz it’s working you big lug!
Robert Wood (17:43:55) : “And, unstated, is that the NAS members will provide thew politicans with ther excuses, and will be very well paid in research dollars.”
[Sorry I’m again too long-winded… and speak a lousy English.]
No, you don’t got my point …because I wasn’t clear enough. I agree with Allan M R MacRae (20:08:52) that NAS’ position isn’t aggressive AGW, and that they therefor don’t say what Edward Markey assume (or lie about) that they say. I should have said that politicians use the word “science”, not actual science.
I’m on the NAS side in that they do not propose any political program such as the Waxman-Markey bill. NAS has had a development which Lindzen describes in the document “Climate Science: Is It Currently Designed To Answer Questions?“ (*). Lindzen describes a new Temporary Nominating Group for NAS (which I think was suggested by the environmentalists) where not so bright scientists, like John Holdren, has got their way into NAS. Many of those elected via the Temporary Nominating Group (where scientific merits isn’t prioritized), like e.g. Holdren, has reached top positions within NAS. That’s a shame. But still NAS just say that AGW is real (as other scientific bodies in the world does), and they didn’t told the congress what to do with the Lieberman-Warner bill, as well as they don’t tell them what to do with the Waxman-Markey bill, or any other political decision! Markey is therefore lying about NAS position (using the good reputation of that organization).
(*) http://www.ecoworld.com/features/2008/10/30/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/
Large anthropogenic global warming and the lies on facts, politics and stupidity around it I regard as a narrative which is used for political purpose. This is important, and there is no conspiracy in or from the scientific society. UN did set up IPCC, universities didn’t. (Then we have the money problem where politicians as Markey may stop money to Universities who question the narrative, but that‘s incentives in the other direction.)
–
Let me also mention tactics which I can see is now used on a political level dressed in “science“; not mainstream sound science, but a political climate alarmist movement based on Universities. Thus only the word “science” as a symbol — for politicians — for settled knowledge. The tactics I see is the preparation for the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December. The group which was responsible for the first Copenhagen conference in March this year was IARU (Hulme was invited as a moderator at that conference, and mentioned this in a partly critical BBC article (**)). A self appointed group from the self appointed 11 best Universities in the World.
(**) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7946476.stm
However, a problem with the March conference In Copenhagen is that those who participated almost everyone are climate alarmists. We had John Schellnhuber from Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts, which is a very alarmistic Institute which “science” is to make models with positive feedbacks and tipping points only. I don’t think they are doing anything else. Schellnhuber is a theoretical physicist with math skills, but he isn’t a climate scientist. Another mathematician and climate activist is Amanda Lynch at Monash University. She’s also study the limits of a climate out of control, sort of.
http://arts.monash.edu.au/ges/staff/alynch.php
So here we have a bunch of climate alarmists who are telling the politicians what they shall to in Copenhagen in December. No dissidents are tolerated, and I’m sure even Mike Hulme, Hans von Storch and other climate scientists believing in AGW are rejected as dissidents, although Mike Hulme was invited as a moderator (maybe to “act as a poster boy” for a less alarmistic position).
The Copenhagen meeting is prepared as a meeting for a narrative, which is the narrative of UN too, and which asks for more government, and even world government on carbon emissions. Politicians will be likely to praise “the science” as a political road map which they follows as servants — for the good sake of the people.
But the winner is the environmental movement, which I would say is a leftist movement, and the same movement as the one 1968 and at the first Earth Day 1970.
This is a political coup (buy activists, science in general not to blame; although political scientific bodies shall be embarrassed).
Let’s hope lots of countries are strident against the international carbon trade scheme which UN wants to have. I also think that politicians in all countries in the West should grip what I have mentioned here.
A complementary note: I would like the preparation group for the Copenhagen conference being targeted by the media as a interrest group. A new major theme should be prepared by the media, about the political coup by environmentalists!
That would be a selling story today, New York Times! What are you waiting for?
I’ve visited this site and read the articles and comments for quite some time now. I’ve followed innumerable links to other articles, giving views on both sides of the debate. Since those making comments here are often true scientists, which I am not, I’ve not ever posted a comment. But Mr. Hulme’s views bring up something that has been bothering me for some time. A lack of clear and honest discussion of the issue.
My view of science was that one may have a theory within your field of study. Observations are made and/or experiments designed and run to either prove or disprove the theory. This should be repeatable. Underlying this, I’ll admit’ rather simplistic understanding of how science is conducted is the idea that facts are immutable. They do not change and are readily apparent to another expert in a given field of study. If I understand correctly, this site originally came into being to point out problems with land based temperature measurements being taken across the US. A potential source of bad data.
So why do I hear people across the globe putting forward as fact statements that are diametrically opposed?
Why do I hear that global temperatures have been dropping since 1998? No their not, 2005 was the warmest year. That Arctic ice is shrinking. No it isn’t, it has started to recover. The Greenland ice sheet is melting. Not it’s not. Antarctic ice calving is a sure sign of coming catastrophe. No it’s not, it’s normal and ice coverage in the Antarctic is growing. CO2 is a pollutant. No it’s not, it’s vital for life. Global temperature rise and increased CO2 are good. OMG NO! We’ll reach a “tipping point” that will plunge the earth into fiery hell!
And on, and on, and on, and…..
I think you see my problem, and one I think Mr. Hulme is suggesting that we solve. If scientists can’t even agree on what baseline data set to use, what hope is there of ever arriving at the truth? I realize that scientific discovery can be adversarial and competitive, but we should at least be able to agree on the reliability of simple observational data?
It gets me so confused my head hurts.
I am in the Robert Wood camp on this one:
As founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Social Engineering, (sorry, that should read Climate Change Research), Mike Hulme presided over the very climate alarmism that he now eschews. You can read his legacy here: http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/media/news/archive_news.shtml
In 1999 Mike Hulme helped to organise the ECLAT-2 Workshop Report No . 1 Helsinki, Finland, 14-16 April 1999, “Representing Uncertainty in Climate Change Scenarios and Impact Studies”
This was in the opening statement:
“Uncertainty is a constant companion of scientists and decision-makers involved in global climate change research and management. This uncertainty arises from two quite different sources – ‘incomplete’ knowledge and ‘unknowable’ knowledge. ‘Incomplete’ knowledge affects much of our model design, whether they be climate models (e.g. poorly understood cloud physics) or impact models.
Unknowable’ knowledge arises from the inherent indeterminacy of future human society and of the climate system. (This was before Rumsfeld and his classic truism, “we don’t know what we don’t know”). Human (and therefore social) actions are not predictable in any deterministic sense and we will always have to create future greenhouse gas emissions trajectories on the basis of indeterminate scenario analysis (Nakicenovic et al.., 1998). Uncertainties in climate change predictions arising from this source are therefore endemic.”
The following year he founded the Tyndall Centre and uncertainty became a thing of the past.
Part of the Tyndall mission statement was to “exert a seminal influence on the design and achievability of the long-term strategic objectives of UK and international climate policy”. It sought to integrate scientific and social disciplines in promoting the idea of dangerous climate change and to stimulate public policy initiatives on energy and transport. It aimed to motivate society into an acceptance of the catastrophic perception of climate change and to impart the view that it, (society), has the ability, but needs the willingness to “choose our future climate”.
His foray into post-normal science was in a review he wrote of Singer and Avery’s book, “Climate Change – every 1500 years. UK journalist Melanie Phillips commented thus:
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1469 – March 14, 2007
“From the horse’s mouth — climate change theory has nothing to do with the truth. In a remarkable column in today’s Guardian Mike Hulme, ……………a key figure in the promulgation of climate change theory, who but a short while ago warned that exaggerated forecasts of global apocalypse were in danger of destroying the case altogether — writes that scientific truth is the wrong tool to establish the, er, truth of global warming. Instead, we need a perspective of what he calls ‘post-normal’ science:
“Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists – and politicians – must trade (normal) truth for influence.”
To have the Director of Tyndall ridiculed in this way was embarrassing for the government campaign. Four months later he was on “sabbatical”. He was replaced at Tyndall by Bob Watson, former advisor to Al Gore, former IPCC Chairman and former Chief Scientist at the World Bank. It wasn’t long before Watson produced this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/06/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange:
“The UK should take active steps to prepare for dangerous climate change of perhaps 4C according to one of the government’s chief scientific advisers. In policy areas such as flood protection, agriculture and coastal erosion. Professor Bob Watson said the country should plan for the effects of a 4C global average rise on pre-industrial levels.”
Great relief, the UK was back on message.
Sociology continues to play a major role in the climate change agenda:
1,200 participants have just attended the Open Meeting of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP), a research arm of the UN.
“One of the keynotes was from Hans Joachim Schellnhuber of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research. After a daunting rundown of climate change threats, Schellnhuber – a physicist in a sea of human-dimensioners – urged social science to take the front seat on the problem. “Speaking as a natural scientist,” he said, “I think 90% of research [on global change] will have to be done by the social scientists.”
I thought it already was…..
Good to see so many _new dimensions_ opening up in the WUWT climate discussion …
“I wonder how history will define the two factions. Maybe environmentalists vs. humanists?” – Tamara (10:37:17)
“[…] a simple fact about human behavior which is, the more passionate, emotionally connected and outspoken one is to a position or cause, the more resistant and less rational and logical one will be in accepting any information that runs to the contrary.” – bsneath (09:07:46)
“[…] from a “meta” perspective […] issue of climate change encompasses much more than the bare science […] involves values, the sort of society we want to live in, and even our vision for the future of humanity.” – Brendan H (02:43:41)
– – –
All those eggs in one basket …
DennisA (12:13:35) “It sought to integrate scientific and social disciplines in promoting the idea of dangerous climate change and to stimulate public policy initiatives”
– – –
This is the crux of the issue:
Magnus A (17:12:25) “Discussion is also important in science […] must be conducted within a framework where the categories true and false exists and are a crucial quality which enables science”
… but grey is being portrayed as black &/or white by those who cannot perceive or will not acknowledge paradox …
–
Magnus A (17:12:25) “[…] their authority isn’t relevant for politics […] science has no political responsibility. Science shall not govern society. Scientist can have – and it’s good if the have – opinons in political matters and contribute in the common debate, but it’s not up to them to decide political path.”
This is getting to the meat of the climate issue.
Magnus A (17:12:25) “[…] scientific dictatorshio […] made me reflect on Science Fiction in which I guess science sometimes is idealized as “good” and capable of superior (non-democratic) political control. So a hypothesis this resulted in is that it may be a tendency among in particular engineers and scientists (???) to embrace scince as a political decision level…(?)”
Well-worth thinking about so we can avoid a cold & calculated disaster based on the untenable assumptions that underpin so many of the “facts”. Free people are not going to volunteer to be slaves of false “reason”. It could take decades, centuries, or even millennia to have (all of the necessary) reasonable (no””quotes) facts.
If we risk entering an era of cold calculation – where calculations govern decisions – it will be wise to truculently expose the pervasive abuse of ‘mathematical convenience’, with an aim of eliminating our reliance on untenable assumptions.
Magnus A (17:12:25) “The reason why political decisions by science is wrong […] Scientist are not good politicians […] […] the false picture that science do not dispute things and says what politicians shall do argue that political debate mustn’t take place.”
Thank you for bringing some much-needed ideas to raise the discussion out of a lazy belief that binary black &/or white algorithms supply “good enough” approximations of naturally-twisted-grey.
– – –
John G. Bell (21:41:49) “I think some data is being passed around outside of public scrutiny that has turned some heads. My guess is that it is from one of the hard sciences such as physics or astronomy. But who is to say? The climatologists may be sitting on a land mine. Look away children and remember their example.”
Keep permanently in mind there are aerospace engineering applications …& so by extension there are also ___ applications…
Still, there are strong clues in the (few) data that are publicly available… (maybe no one noticed…)
– – –
Brendan H (02:43:41) “[…] a good start would be to find ways of framing the issue that recognise the similarities between both sides and enable them to seek common ground.”
This is well-underway – but I will disagree here:
Brendan H (02:43:41) “Most of the committed people on either side of the issue will have little difficulty in recognising the worldview of their opponents.”
It’s no longer “us & them; with/without”. At this stage of radiative diversification, one might say there are a multitude of camps ….although even that is a semantic simplification.
– – –
Magnus A (05:03:47) “Large anthropogenic global warming and the lies on facts, politics and stupidity around it I regard as a narrative which is used for political purpose.”
So useful (politically) —- there will be no way to stop this — so focus can (productively) drift to how to roll with the punch to nudge the (massive) momentum in a constructive direction – i.e. this is a major opportunity …
[… That was kind of the whole point — It’s plain to see that the folks in the driver’s-seats don’t appear to actually believe in this stuff. ]
Momentum of this magnitude isn’t available every day and can’t necessarily be conveniently & quickly stirred up artificially via costly-orchestration.
[They (very cleverly) used paradox.]
– – –
Tom B (11:17:29) “So why do I hear people across the globe putting forward as fact statements that are diametrically opposed?”
Much of the science relevant to the climate discussion involves detective work & conjecture without the possibility of experiment.
Tom B (11:17:29) “If scientists can’t even agree on what baseline data set to use, what hope is there of ever arriving at the truth?”
The scientific debate is (slowly) neutralizing itself. Eventually there will be a changing-of-the-scientific-guard and then there can be a new era of scientists – & citizens – who can be fully trained in nonlinear & conditional thinking.
Today’s climate science has stalemated itself through inability &/or unwillingness to be large enough to contain apparent contradiction. Hence the maturing & necessary drift in productive discussion-focus towards the kinds of points Magnus A (17:12:25) raises.
– – –
How to recognize POISON BAIT:
“[…] ad hominem slur” – Pragmatic (09:33:37)
No wool over these objectively-glazed eyes …
“He, like any other “believer in the consensus,” prefers the ad-hominem over rational argument any day.” – Mark T (14:02:44)
… nor over these penetrating ones:
“To maintain power they must preserve the “consensus” by avoiding debate and ridiculing or discrediting the opposition.” – Tamara (10:37:17)
Jeez: “Ok, Brendan H, are you being rational today in order to win me over, cuz it’s working you big lug!”
Just working on my vision for the future of humanity.
Paul Vaughan: “It’s no longer “us & them; with/without”. At this stage of radiative diversification, one might say there are a multitude of camps ….although even that is a semantic simplification.”
If you mean there are a range of views about climate change among climate scientists, that’s probably always been the case. The IPCC reports present a number of scenarios including, for example, a range of possible temperature levels from CO2 forcing. And of course sceptics also occupy a number of positions vis-a-vis climate.
That said, there is a definite dividing line between those who reject climate change or its extent, and counsel inaction, and those who accept climate change and the need to take action.
On the political/economic/social side there is likely to be an even greater diversity of views, since as Hulme says, one’s position on climate change does not determine how one might respond to it.
Even so, if most climate scientists are left-leaning – and I have no idea whether they are — they would most likely opt for solutions that are government-led, or at least have no great objection to them.
Re: Brendan H (01:14:13)
The positions don’t lie on a linear continuum – and whatever dividing lines may exist are confused & obfuscated by natural desire to curb toxic pollution (CO2 aside) and earn money.
What we are seeing is a lot of people who are willing to “go along” with a ride to get to somewhere else …and that “somewhere else” could be an opportunity to profit from a ‘green’ economic framework &/or, more simply, a perceived opportunity to reduce toxic pollution – for 2 examples (with beliefs about CO2 left aside).
In other words:
A lot of poker-faces and few showing their true hand.
The (blind-eye-turned) reasoning seems to go like this:
Step A – Get a control system in place.
Step B – Adjust it to be something else (perhaps something sensible) later.
…but it is making a lot of folks look crooked since “sensible” is left out of Step A and not guaranteed later.
If they would switch the slogan from “ghg” to “toxic pollution”, they would appear a lot more honest & credible.
2 things are for sure:
1) Hardly anyone in the game appears honest, so whichever way things go is unlikely to have much to do with truth.
2) Anyone projecting that scientists can’t &/or don’t lie appears profoundly (almost incomprehensively) naive.
correction:
incomprehensibly (not incomprehensively)