The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider

From the National Post

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’…”

Read the rest here.

And Hulme’s full text here.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
George E. Smith

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.

PJB

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?

Nuke

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.

Enneagram

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.

Jim G

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.

jack morrow

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.

latitude

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.

tim maguire

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.

trbixler

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.

Roy UK

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.

Kate

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.

Enneagram

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.”

Henry chance

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.

RockyRoad

The term “concensus” only applies when a single scientist is questioned. Come to think of it, that’s about what the IPCC did!

Steve Oregon

My hope is that RealClimate’s Gavin Schmidt experiences Real Jail.

Enneagram

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.

Enneagram

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.]

DirkH

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

Curiousgeorge

@ 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.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

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!

snopercod

Epistemology is simply the study of what constitutes knowledge and how knowledge may be obtained.

Enneagram

tallbloke says:
June 14, 2010 at 1:29 pm
No, I meant Albert Einstein. He was a precursor with his Doomsday Clock.

RoyFOMR

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.

kwik

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

Jim G

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.

Jimbo

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

Enneagram

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.

DirkH

“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.

el gordo

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.

Enneagram

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?

dr.bill

tallbloke: June 14, 2010 at 12:43 pm
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.

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

Gareth

A summation of the IPCC stance; 2500 scientists agree but not necessarily with each other.

Geckko

Sorry, but I read the conclusion and it is so much academic masturbatory nonsense.

Murray Duffin

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.

Al Gore's Holy Hologram

And you thought the Council of Nicea couldn’t happen again

Dave Andrews

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.

latitude

“”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.

Gail Combs

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.

Alex the skeptic

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