This is a surprise. Professor Mike Hulme of the University of East Anglia suggests that the “I.P.C.C. has run its course”. I agree with him. We really need to remove a wholly political organization, the United Nations, from science.
Republished from New York Times Reporter Andrew Revkin’s Dot Earth:
Dot Earth: Insights from Mike Hulme at the University of East Anglia, which was the source of the disclosed files. Hulme, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia and author of “ Why We Disagree About Climate Change,” has weighed in with these thoughts about the significance of the leaked files and emails. In November 2009, Hulme was listed as “the 10th most cited author in the world in the field of climate change, between 1999 and 2009. (ScienceWatch, Nov/Dec 2009, see Table 2).
Hulme Key Excerpt:
[Upcoming UN climate conference in Copenhagen] “is about raw politics, not about the politics of science. […] It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science. It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production – just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.
Full Hulme Statement:
The key lesson to be learned is that not only must scientific knowledge about climate change be publicly owned — the I.P.C.C. does a fairly good job of this according to its own terms — but the very practices of scientific enquiry must also be publicly owned, in the sense of being open and trusted. From outside, and even to the neutral, the attitudes revealed in the emails do not look good. To those with bigger axes to grind it is just what they wanted to find.
This will blow its course soon in the conventional media without making too much difference to Copenhagen — after all, COP15 is about raw politics, not about the politics of science. But in the Internet worlds of deliberation and in the ‘mood’ of public debate about the trustworthiness of climate science, the reverberations of this episode will live on long beyond COP15. Climate scientists will have to work harder to earn the warranted trust of the public – and maybe that is no bad thing.
But this episode might signify something more in the unfolding story of climate change. This event might signal a crack that allows for processes of re-structuring scientific knowledge about climate change. It is possible that some areas of climate science has become sclerotic. It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.
It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production – just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.
h/t to Marc Morano
Sponsored IT training links:
Save your time and money with 642-832 online training. Download 70-646 Q & A with self paced EX0-101 practice exam to prepare and pass exam on first try.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From outside, and even to the neutral, the attitudes revealed in the emails do not look good.
But what inquiring minds want to know, Dr. Hulme, is what did it look like from the inside? You were there while the data was being jiggered, while phony hockey sticks were being waved, while skeptical scientists were being undermined, while the peer review process was being gamed.
What was it like to work every day with frauds, cheats, liars, and hoaxers? What was it like to be a member of the primitive tribe?
It would be an interesting sociology report and right up your alley as a PoMo neo-sociologist (as well as a former scientist). What were the primitive behaviors you witnessed over at CRU? Domination battles? Chest thumping? Grooming? Mating rituals? Can you deconstruct the CRU oeuvre for us?
If things are going to change, it looks like it will have to start with baby steps.
So, this was a small step for a baby but a giant leap for … (well I guess we can always hope anyway).
Y’all lied ,ya stole ,ya intended to steal big time,& now some of you in the media,right up to congress,senate and white house should go to jail.
Robinson, here is it (sorry): http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1469
I fear that it may be too late, and that this economy killing Cap and Trade will pass in some sort or another thanks to our underinformed and overly socialist President and Congress. The urgency is too great for them when you really think about it. If a few more years go by and the cooling trend continues, there will be less confidence in their next scam. But if they pass it now, while they have the votes, then they can claim that “A-Ha, see, our work really has cooled the globe”. Should these commitments happen not to pass in Copenhagen, and cooling trend continues, the next scam will be the acidification of the oceans, caused by excess human CO2! Brilliant! Now we can continue the same extortionary scheme of CO2 trading, and the same players of Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs and the Chicago Climate Exchange can still make money off the same scam, using the same gullible public and governments and the same useful idiots (the mainstream media) to continue the scam!
And, hmmm, perhaps this guy *is* the leak. Certainly fits the bill with his commentary about the politicization of science within the IPCC. Perhaps he became fed up with the B.S. spewing from Phil Jones lips and and had a come-to-Jesus moment about what his deceptive work was about to do around the world.
Robinson (16:44:51) :
And its massive pension fund is invested where exactly? Who are its main subcontractors, management consultants, etc.? What “debt” remains from the Dr Kelly and Greg Dyke fiasco? How many in its employ are paid up members and big contributors to the New Labour project, Greenpeace, WWF, etc.? What scams are behind the scam? This pickled walnut is dark and has many ugly wrinkles I’m afraid, it’s been marinating since well before 1997.
And for the heck of it, here is the original piece by Hulme. Here’s a fuller quote:
And then we wonder why they all see themselves as advocates. There appears to be an emerging post-modern ethos whereby science, as Galileo, understood it, is obsolete, and socio-political orthodoxy, as Cardinal Bellarmine understood it, is now “in” again.
I’m being enormously entertained watching the “emergency exits” at the Grand Global Warming Theater. I see little rat noses tentatively poking out all over the place. Meanwhile, Michael Mann takes to the stage with his magic act once again in a desperate effort to stem the panic.
CH
“Climate analysts is a better term than climate scientists.”
Cult is a better term than tribe for this lot. You join a tribe by birth but you join a cult by becoming a believer.
Is anyone surprised to see hints of postmodern relativism and trashy sociology of science in the utterances of these kleptocratic pseudo-scientists?
Confronted with truths which don’t meet his ideology’s requirements, the cultist enlists streams of pseudo-thought hostile to truth in the fight to vindicate his cult.
Post modern science? ROFL
Try post-science climate politics. It is a magical land where ethics matter not, and every Monte Carlo simulation makes a glorious hockey stick shape. Hockey sticks for everyone!
It is nifty that they released these e-mails/docs, but I can’t help thinking that we are watching the wrong hand, getting set up, or getting hustled.
It appears that many readers have failed to grasp that Professor Mike Hulme, School of Environmental Sciences, and Director Tyndall Centre University of East Anglia, IS NOT interested in doing any favors for the community of climate skeptics. On the contrary, his latest statements are wholly consistent with moving forward the alarmist climate change agenda regardless of any opposition from skeptics of climate change or revelations of climate alarmist misconduct or fraudulent data. Talk of dismantling of the IPCC only foreshadows the transformation of the organization into other front organizations better organized to conceal activities and move forward with implementations of the alarmist climate change strategies while brushing aside classic Enlightenment scientific methods, organizations, and personalities. Hulme denies the scientific method used in “normal science” in favor of applying “post-modern science” and “social construction” in place of Truth seeking. To grasp the enormity of his interpretations of the very meaning of what is science and what is not science, see his review of Unstoppable Global Warming – every 1,500 years by S Fred Singer and Dennis T Avery in the 24 January 2007 Post-Normal Times, Putting Science into Context:
http://www.postnormaltimes.net/blog/archives/2007/01/book_review_uns.html
“One of the central reasons we disagree about climate change is because we have different conceptions of what science is and with what authority it speaks – in other words, how scientific ‘knowledge’ interacts with those other realms of understanding brought to us by politics, ethics and spirituality.”
“The unfortunate thing is that many people still hold onto a ‘normal’ faith in science such that it can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow. Fred Singer has this view of science; so does Mark Lynas. That is why they reduce their exchange to one about scientific truth rather than about values, perspectives and political preferences.”
“Climate change is too important to be left to scientists, least of all the normal ones.”
Hulme is a key figure in the alarmist climate change strategies, and his recent statements must be read and understood in light of his declared beliefs that “normal science” is to be shunned and discarded in favor of “post-modern science” in all scientific inquiries and deliberations concerning anthropogenic global warming (AGW). See and judge for yourself what he has to say about “normal science”, truth seeking, and the role of the scientific method in determining policies regarding so-called Climate Change ( aka AGW).
There’s a field of climate change?
***************
Jeff Alberts (18:39:32) :
There’s a field of climate change?
*****************
If we aren’t vigilant and active, it will be the field where our dreams are buried.
Let’s be clear, “post-normal” science is pure FRAUD.
And has its origin in Marxism/Socialism: Truth is what WE make it.
We can make a New Socialist Man.
To the ash heap of history goes this rubbish.
Don’t be fooled. Judy Curry was over on Climate Audit a couple of days ago trying out this “tribalism” meme as a cover for the correct term, which is conspiracy. Now Hulme pops up with the same word. What a coincidence!
We don’t know yet if the AGW conspirators made it to too-big-to-fail status before they got caught on the Internet with their pants down around their ankles. Maybe. They sure entrained a lot of politicians and press. But you never know. Nixon took 49 states in 1972 AFTER the Watergate break-in. Yet two years later he resigned in disgrace and all his pals–some of the highest officials in the government–went to jail. The Climategate plotters ought to think long and hard about that.
Was it really hackers or a whistleblower? I’ll bet it was more of a whistleblower…that’s who needs to step forward and lead the effort to clean this mess up.
This may be very important but I have no way to assess the importance.
Vincent Gray on Climategate: ‘There Was Proof of Fraud All Along’ (PJM Exclusive)
IPCC expert reviewer Gray — whose 1,898 comments critical of the 2007 report were ignored — recently found that proof of the fraud was public for years.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/vincent-gray-on-climategate-there-was-proof-of-fraud-all-along-pjm-exclusive/
“IPCC has run it’s course”, he blathers…
….Yeah well. After 79 billion dollars wasted on “climate science” and the UEA’s own 25 million dollar slice of the action fleeced from the long suffering British taxpayer… ” Time we moved on”, they say.
… Er, there’s a pound of flesh to be collected first…. I think the British taxpayer might want a wee look at how that data base was constructed.
Here’s his CV (to August 2007). A “random selection” of interesting stuff includes …
Media Work:
Consultancies:
[HR-HAT]
An organ grinder or the monkey wearing pinko globalist spectacles?
I’m a celebrity, get me out of here.
CV -> Bin
[/HR-HAT]
My favorite LIE the last few winters when it gets really COLD is the warmists claiming it’s cold because of global warming! They think ya’ll are really stupid, no really.
Wow the jig is up! The alice in wonderland effect is gone and i didn’t even get to get on board for the clunkers for cash! im bummed! Oh wait, the appliance for cash will get me some change. im ok now, whewwwww
Before “IPCC has run it’s course” Hulme wants one more IPCC report. And then he think politics has been settled — or?
I have long wondered why these ‘climate scientists’ prefer that appellation to the traditional ‘climatologist’. Is it because they are at bottom political ideologues and only secondarily scientists?
Geologist, biologists, physicists, et al. are generally content with their traditional labels. Yes, I suppose Prof. Lindzen is an ‘atmospheric scientist’, but that may be only because his field is so new. Was climatology reborn with “An Inconvenient Truth”?
/Mr Lynn
Look at it this way, next time the republicans get caught being bad boys, we can just chalk it up to ‘tribalism’, the media will give them a pass, and everything will be ok, won’t it? Didn’t think so..