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.
Paul Vaughan: “What we are seeing is a lot of people who are willing to “go along” with a ride to get to somewhere else …”
You’ll always get people jumping onto a bandwagon and bringing various motivations to any enterprise. That’s just human nature.
And people also have mixed motives. Someone may desire to ‘do something good’ for humanity and make a very good living as a surgeon. The energy executive may spot a profitable opportunity in renewables and enjoy a feeling of virtue at reducing his carbon footprint.
What’s happening at the moment, especially in your country, is that the politics is moving the issue to the point where action is becoming a reality rather than a distant possibility, as previously. As a result, the motivations of the various parties are becoming more visible. I don’t see anything untoward in this.
“2) Anyone projecting that scientists can’t &/or don’t lie appears profoundly (almost incomprehensively) naive.”
It’s true that scientists can lie/deceive themselves, but the default position, as with anyone, is surely that scientists should be presumed honest until shown otherwise.
Brendan H (15:05:13) “It’s true that scientists can lie/deceive themselves, but the default position, as with anyone, is surely that scientists should be presumed honest until shown otherwise.”
Do you have an insider’s view?
Paul Vaughan: “Do you have an insider’s view?”
Insider’s view of what?
The research/higher-education system is not working well enough for civilization’s needs.
I will share 4 leading causes:
1) lack of funding.
2) lack of secure funding.
3) narrowly-constrained funding.
4) unfathomably nasty administrative culture.
A few years ago I was estimating it would take 3 decades to make substantial improvements to the system. During the past year I have revised the estimate to: Indeterminate.