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’…”
It’s not all bad for the IPCC: It was the inspiration for a steamy novel.
He also make this point “But consensus-making can also lead to criticism for being too conservative, as Hansen (2007) has most visibly argued…” in the next sentence. So what is be really saying? Is the IPCC too conservative?
Thanks tallbloke.
Hulme also had some comments on PNS..
If you have not seen it, this is an interesting interview where AGW ideology discussed:
http://fora.tv/2009/11/06/Uncommon_Knowledge_Vaclav_Klaus#fullprogram
Alex the skeptic.
I don’t think you can make simple assumptions about Hulme. he is a very interesting character in the whole climategate controversy. I think he is driven by larger principles.. right now that’s all I’ll say..
I applaud Hulme because he could have stayed silent and continued lapping up the gravy from the train. This and other statements by him may be a prelude to completely jumping ship and becoming a’rabid sceptic. :o)
I would caution people against fitting Hulme in a box.
A complex cat to be sure. I’d love to interview him.
“”Gail Combs says:””
Excellent Gail, I think you have it 100% right
david elder says:
June 14, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Re: Tuvalu
From what I vaguely remember not all sea level rises are equal around the globe. Still, the Tuvalu and Maldives nonsense was smacked down some time back anyway.
Sea levels and atolls
http://solomonstarnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7075&change=103&changeown=89&Itemid=45
Former lead reviewer for the IPCC, Nils-Axel Mörner)
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5595813/why-the-maldives-arent-sinking.thtml
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/floating-islands/
“Atolls are created by sea level rise, not destroyed by sea level rise.”
@ur momisugly Gail Combs says:
June 14, 2010 at 3:12 pm
………………….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”
Also known as “manufacturing consent”. – The book of the same name, by Herman & Chomsky. I’m not a fan of either, but the book was a blueprint for how this is going down today, even tho it was written for a different world (1988).
Spin spin spin. Below is a paragraph that the ‘disingenuous’ quote came from.
“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; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields. But consensus-making can also lead to criticism for being too conservative, as Hansen (2007) has most visibly argued. Was the IPCC AR4 too conservative in reaching its consensus about future sea-level rise? Many glaciologists and oceanographers think they were (Kerr, 2007; Rahmstorf, 2010), leading to what Hansen attacks as ‘scientific reticence’. Solomon et al. (2008) offer a robust defence, stating that far from reaching a premature consensus, the AR4 report stated that in fact no consensus could be reached on the magnitude of the possible fast ice-sheet melt processes that some fear could lead to 1 or 2 metres of sea-level rise this century. Hence these processes were not included in the quantitative estimates.”
Note that quotation does not have a source – it is a general ‘for instance’. It does not say who, if anyone, is saying the IPCC process involved only climate scientists, only that this false impression is ‘out there’ in the media.
There is plenty of evidence from statements of national academies, professional scientific associations and surveys of climate scientists, that a large majority of climatologists agree that ‘that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate.’ The paragraph goes on to say that the IPCC report may be too conservative.
The paper is a literature review and does not draw strict conclusions. It may be helpful to the IPCC process as it grapples with how to present a vast area of science to policy makers and the general public in a ‘fair and balanced’ manner. The Nation Post is distorting the purpose of the article.
Secret IPCC meeting details:
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/secret-ipcc-panel-meeting/
What’s the opposite of “robust”?
Good news. The herd is breaking ranks. Whatever criticisms one may have about the particulars, the guy should be commended on his courage. One might say that he’s just getting out ahead of the collapse but… the forces and megabucks depending on this AGW project may well just plow ahead no matter what.
Particulary with Comrade Obama in power, making the most of the Gulf crisis.
Exactly. I think Hulme let the ‘disingenuous’ nature of the IPCC’s ‘consensus’ claim slip by accident; it’s a damning revelation. His paper is otherwise a compendium review of other studies of the IPCC ‘process’ in bureaucratic ‘postmodern’ jargon. But Hulme has now told the world what climate realists (i.e. real scientists) have known for a long time, namely that the IPCC’s goal was not to do science but to create the appearance of science to justify a massive political agenda of socialist ‘global governance’.
Now how can we get this truth to penetrate the thick skulls of the mass media?
/Mr Lynn
Curiousgeorge says:
June 14, 2010 at 3:51 pm
“….Also known as “manufacturing consent”. – The book of the same name, by Herman & Chomsky. I’m not a fan of either, but the book was a blueprint for how this is going down today, even tho it was written for a different world (1988).”
___________________________________________________________________
It is also known as “Hegelian dielectric” or “building consensus” Livestock farmers have gotten a bellyful here in the USA in the last decade. It is pretty frightening to know international organizations are using sophisticated techniques to lead people around by the nose. Especially when the predetermined conclusion they are leading us to is harmful to us.
From this spring:
“In the USDA Friday March 18-19 meetings that were held for Traceability they have facilitators at each table. Now notice in these docs that each topic discussion is timed and then the groups move to another topic. No group knows what the other is saying. They did this in all the other NAIS sessions. It is highly manipulative and I highly doubt these people know who attend know what is going on other then the believers. What the USDA is using is the Hegelian dialectic to get a predetermined consensus. This process was designed by George Wilhelm Hegel, a transformational Marxist.
Here is how it works: A diverse group of people ( Farm Bureau, American Horse Council, VETS ( believers (thesis) and unbelievers (antithesis) gather in a facilitated meeting (USDA and with a trained facilitator/teacher/group leader/change agent) using group dynamics (Peer pressure) to discuss a social issue (NAIS/Traceability) and reach a pre-determined outcome (consensus, compromise, or Systhesis)
To understand it more (typing the HTTP http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/brainwashing/dialectic.htm ) Read it all and you will see that the very groups we know use the ‘Process’ to sway our thinking. Learn and understand it. The Delphi technique ( type in Http http://www.learn-usa.com/transformation_process/acf001.htm) is based on the Hegelian principle and there is ways to break this up but you must know how to recognize when the Delphi/Hegelian principle is being used.(type in the Http http://www.learn-usa.com/transformation_process/acf002.htm )”
Comment gisela
Unfortunately “they” just keep coming no matter how many times you say no. “They” are determined to run independent farmers out of business here in the USA and they will slip a food law in as soon as we quit watching “them” for a second. I am not sure but I think they just changed the name and slipped a NAIS like regulation through this month despite the overwhelming opposition to it.
Nuke says:
June 14, 2010 at 12:30 pm
“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.”
exactly! For hundreds if not thousands of years there was a consensus that the earth was flat.
Of course The National Post is ignoring (not distorting) the purpose of the article. Kudos to TNP for picking out this damning sentence:
“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.”
In one blow it reveals the deceit and chicanery that led to the creation of the IPCC in order to pursue a radical political agenda, disguised as science.
They have been thwarted, by Climategate and Copenhagen, but make no mistake: they have not given up. Tomorrow look for The Great Pretender to tell us how the ‘environmental catastrophe’ of the Gulf undersea gusher requires the Congress to pass a Cap and Trade bill, which will put every form of productive activity under the strict rule of the government.
Don’t let the Congress and the American people fall for it!
/Mr Lynn
So funny, at the bottom of the article, from Google ads,
Ads by Google
CSIRO Survey
Australia Coastal Survey on Property & Rising Sea Levels
http://www.cse.csiro.au/coastal-survey
Complete this survey and let CSIRO know what you think, I have
Mike D. says:
June 14, 2010 at 4:35 pm
> What’s the opposite of “robust”?
I’d say fragile.
I’ve hated “robust” since I first heard in Computer Science structured programming cheerleading around 1970. Unfortunately, I haven’t come up with an acceptable alternative yet.
(Note to ancient programmers – I’m not saying structured programming (or object oriented languages) are bad things, just that the loudest cheerleaders seemed to need the most practice at writing readable and maintainable code.) (There ought to be a parallel with the those cheering on the consensus needing to learn how scientific method really works.)
Curiousgeorge says:
June 14, 2010 at 3:51 pm
@ur momisugly Gail Combs says:
June 14, 2010 at 3:12 pm
………………….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”
Also known as “manufacturing consent”. – The book of the same name, by Herman & Chomsky. I’m not a fan of either, but the book was a blueprint for how this is going down today, even tho it was written for a different world (1988).
—…—…—…
Manufacturing consent” eh? Of “the governed” by “the elite” maybe?
Interesting confluence of the communist/socialist Chomsky (who figures greatly in maintaining and directing the international socialist/academic direction of thought) and the green remnants from the failure of socialism and communism in Europe and the US. Without this artificial and much advertised/propagandized “consent” and “consensus” there could be no successful propaganda promoting the CAGW agenda.
With a trained and educated and morally correct press corps, there would be no propaganda published. But today’s press “corpse” actively promotes the propaganda and lies of CAGW because its furthers THEIR causes.
RoyFOMR says:
June 14, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Once you realize
Barack Insane Obummer(sorry, self semi-snip) Obama isn’t really interested in science (despite campaigning that he was going to bring science back to its rightful position) you will understand the frustration much better. He and all his advisers care more about power over people than they do about alternative sources of power. The IPCC is the same. That’s why they’ve always touted the consensus when there never was one.Gail, thanks for the gisela link. 🙂
I visit several other special interest blogs/forums, most of which are connected to one or more of my hobbies, and that usually don’t allow discussion of politics, current events, etc., but even at those forums there is a growing undercurrent of discontent with the state of things, and what is seen as increasingly intrusive and incompetent gov’t. And folks are just not buying the line that it’s “for our own good”, etc. The whole AGW thing is seen as nothing more than another means ( one of several, real and/or artificial, crises that feed Joe Romm’s appetite – you know the line, and if one isn’t handy, create one. ) to subjugate the country/world, and it wouldn’t take much to push some people beyond what they can tolerate. As my late grandmother would say; “It ain’t soup yet, but the pots bubblin’ .”
RACook says:
‘But today’s press “corpse” actively promotes the propaganda and lies of CAGW because its furthers THEIR causes.’
Having spent some time in the trade, it appears more likely they swallowed the green pill and never took time to understand the scientific arguments.
Mike D. says:
June 14, 2010 at 4:35 pm
What’s the opposite of “robust”?
If Robust is:
“strong and healthy; hardy; vigorous: a robust young man; a robust faith; a robust mind.”
Then the opposite has to be either
Frail
1. having delicate health; not robust; weak: My grandfather is rather frail now.
2. easily broken or destroyed; fragile.
3. morally weak; easily tempted
Or
Feeble
1. physically weak, as from age or sickness; frail.
2. weak intellectually or morally: a feeble mind.
3. lacking in volume, loudness, brightness, distinctness, etc.: a feeble voice; feeble light.
4. lacking in force, strength, or effectiveness: feeble resistance; feeble arguments.
I’ll go with the Climate Models are Feeble.