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’…”
The National Post quoting from the article by Hulme and Mahoney:
“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…”
Notice the entire sentence wasn’t quoted. I think the last part was left out because including it would have raised questions the National Post didn’t want. Below is the complete sentence from the article:
” 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.”
If among all IPCC authors only experts in detection and attribution are qualified to back claims of man-made global warming, and the few dozen who were IPCC authors do back the claims , don’t we have a consensus of IPPC experts?
If IPCC authors who areexperts in other fields can join in the consensus, don’t we have a consensus of thousands?
Mike D. says:
June 14, 2010 at 4:35 pm
What’s the opposite of “robust”?
Robust Or bust
Steven mosher says:
June 14, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Thanks tallbloke.
Hulme also had some comments on PNS..
Here’s the relevant section.
Saloranta (2001) and Yamineva (2010) both approach the question of the governance and operation of the IPCC through the lens of post-normal science (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993), yet they reach almost diametrically opposite conclusions. Saloranta argues that the IPCC is an example of how the philosophy of post-normal science is reflected in practice, whereas Yamineva is critical of the Panel’s reflexivity: “… the IPCC is clearly not a post-normal science institution in this regard” (Yamineva, 2010: 178). This lack of reflexivity is echoed by Beck (2010) in her study of the appropriateness of the IPCC model of knowledge production for the difficult questions surrounding adaptation policy and decision-making. She offers evidence suggesting that Miller’s (2007) anxiety that the IPCC has not earned the political legitimacy it needs to exert constraints on the global exercise of power may be well-founded.
My bold.
Diametrically opposite conclusions eh? Sounds like the normal situation for the application of PNS ideas by different people.
😉
Mike D.: June 14, 2010 at 4:35 pm
What’s the opposite of “robust”?
“Busted” — including the legal connotation…
re Wren: June 14, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Wren (seriously), I don’t understand how you can, on the one hand, repeatedly and relentlessly just skim the surface of anything ‘alarmist’ and then spend such large amounts of time in detailed nit-picking about anything ‘counter-alarmist’, while treating the rest of us as illiterate clods who can’t see beyond our noses.
Your post that I have referenced is a case in point. All of us have likely read the whole article, many of us before it appeared on WUWT, and we read entire sentences and paragraphs, and can generally do so without moving our lips. Newspapers don’t put everything into their headlines. They put what will catch people’s attention, and they often try to compress what they think is the gist of an article into that headline. Headlines are supposed to be short. Everyone on the planet knows that you have to read beyond the brief quotes and headlines.
Your analysis of the IPCC ‘concensus’ suffers from a trivial weakness of logic. In science fiction novels, for example, particularly those involving great quantities of minute description, a common symptom arises. If you ask a Biologist for an opinion of the novel, you often get an answer like: “Some errors in the Biology, but otherwise good.” Ask a Physicist, and you’ll get: “Some errors in the Physics, but otherwise good.”, and so on for the Chemists, Engineers, Geologists, Economists, and all the others.
The IPCC process suffers from the exact complement of this paradigm, and I cannot believe that you do not see this, because you are too articulate otherwise. If you have financial interests in the matter, then I can at least understand that. If that isn’t the case, then I simply don’t understand how you can write these things as if you believe them. You just don’t seem that dumb.
/dr.bill
Wren: June 14, 2010 at 10:42 pm
” 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.”
If among all IPCC authors only experts in detection and attribution are qualified to back claims of man-made global warming, and the few dozen who were IPCC authors do back the claims , don’t we have a consensus of IPPC experts?
If IPCC authors who areexperts in other fields can join in the consensus, don’t we have a consensus of thousands?
I could write a report proving UV-Induced Systemic Degradation of Binary Neurotoxins on Military Aircraft Treated with CARC Paint, recommend that CARC-treated aircraft should only be flown during daylight hours, and get thousands of experts — in Library Science and Ninjutsu — to agree with me.
If one individual with a lick of common sense called bullsh*t and showed why, my Magic Consensus of Thousands isn’t worth doodley-squat to science.
Where are the journalists on this?
Wren,
If a music group has thousands of fans, does that mean that there are thousands of people in the group?
Wren says: June 14, 2010 at 10:42 pm
If IPCC authors who areexperts in other fields can join in the consensus, don’t we have a consensus of thousands?
Yes, we do have a “consensus of thousands”:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
“I did not say the ‘IPCC misleads’ anyone – it is claims that are made by other commentators, such as the caricatured claim I offer in the paper, that have the potential to mislead.”
— http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Correcting-reports-of-the-PiPG-paper.pdf
I’m happy to see that one insider has spoken out and revealed the propaganda and spin (The Big Lie?) that gave the blinkered the ability to hide behind a mantra that there WAS this consensus of science and scientists of such magnitude, that we who dared question should move aside, get out of the way, the science is settled.
Now exactly where is the apology, the mea culpa of all those that used that big lie to ignore the damage that had been done to science, put their head in the sand, fingers firmly in their ears while they poured scorn on sceptics who dared speak up.
Must be embarrassing for those that knew it was a lie, but kept silent while the vultures at Real Climate fed out stories to tar and feather respected fellow scientists, blacken their names, or destroy their personal reputations with unfounded claims of associations with big oil, tobacco, or whatever. The bigger the name, the more vicious and inventive, so the sceptical message of these despised “contrarian’s” would be ignored as that vilification continued apace! And all so an inner circle of scare mongering “scientists” could protect the precious hold on their science and lock out dissent.
Blowing the whistle on the reality after blowflies have maggotted the pie of climate science and the smell is becoming apparent, is one thing, but it is now time for others to stand up and publicly support those that have been vilified, and tell the whole truth of what they know and reveal their part as a matter of scientific conscience.
The sooner that is done, the sooner climate science will be restored (mended) in my opinion.
Like the aliens who have been visiting earth for thousands of years …. these contrarian scientists Hulme claims to exist …..
Where are they?
Only by explaining, and by accurate prediction of anomalies at a seasonal, and finer level, would one have a realistic climate model. Without a theory for natural variation, its all politics.
This leads onto the question of how uncertainty more generally has been treated across the various IPCC Working Groups. As Ha-Duong et al. (2007) and Swart et al. (2009) explain, despite efforts by the IPCC leadership to introduce a consistent methodology for uncertainty communication (Moss & Schneider, 2000; Manning, 2006), it has in fact been impossible to police. Different Working Groups, familiar and comfortable with different epistemic traditions, construct and communicate uncertainty in different ways. This opens up possibilities for confusion and misunderstanding not just for policy-makers and the public, but among the experts within the IPCC itself (Risbey & Kandlikar, 2007).
It seems clear that in this particular case, for some reason most of the IPCC scientists were not able to achieve instant Truth, and so they had to manage their uncertainties. In this they had only modest success, as the leadership failed in its attempt to introduce a consistent methodology for uncertainty communication. The resultant ‘confusion and misunderstanding, not just for policy-makers and the public, but among the experts within the IPCC itself’ (Risbey and Kandlikar) may have been an important part of the cause of the subsequent debacle. Since there was no common language for uncertainties, the ‘evangelical scientists’ at CRU who had (they believed) really achieved Truth could not be subjected to incisive critical review by colleagues.
It could be that adopting a system like NUSAP or its adaptation in the Dutch ‘Guidance’, which has the flexibility to accommodate different fields but which enables communication of key information about uncertainty across disciplines, would help to avoid similar disasters, at least until such time as Science achieves instant Truth in this area as in so many others. Jeroen van der Sluijs and colleagues have already shown how this can be done, in special cases of climate and environmental science.
Whether a ‘Tower of Babel’ situation for uncertainties is useful, as Ha-Duong et al believe, is something on which opinions can differ. Webster is correct in prioritising uncertainty management over ‘consensus’ for a rehabilitation of the science. His recommendations for clarity can be achieved through NUSAP, and the distinctions he cites can easily be expressed in a Pedigree matrix when appropriate.
Jerome Ravetz says:
“It seems clear that in this particular case, for some reason most of the IPCC scientists were not able to achieve instant Truth, and so they had to
managemassage their uncertainties.”More accurate, no?
The plain fact is that these promoters of catastrophic AGW have been gaming the system at every opportunity, enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else, including other scientists and the taxpaying public. These devious insiders include the UN/IPCC, Al Gore, the CRU, Rajendra Pachauri, Michael Mann and his U.S. cronies, GISS, James Hansen, NOAA, and everyone else who is part and parcel of the conspiracy to subvert truth in the pursuit of money and status. These people covet their funding far more than scientific truth.
Science in general suffers due to the $billions being diverted into climate “studies” year after year. As is now clear, the CAGW game is only a facade for true incompetents like Phil Jones, who admits to having lost mountains of data while accepting mountains of funding [depending on what he admits to on any particular day].
This dishonest clique of climate insiders is running a scam, no more and no less. And ‘Truth’ has nothing to do with it, because the truth is not in them.
Scientist = New age Druid.
Let me make it plain, I know climate scientists who are working on the oceans, and on the ‘climate sensitivity’. They have high competence and total integrity, and much of their work consists of managing the inherent and severe uncertainties in their materials and products. They are not ‘climate insiders’ and they do not pretend to have Truth; but they do believe that honest, reflexive work can eventually be useful for policy. I believe that such scientists are the great majority. That’s why I have distinguished them from the ‘evangelists’ and the ‘stealth advocates’.
Some of my critics still seem to believe that Scientific Truth is out there for collecting, like Isaac Newton’s pebbles on the beach. I know how that happens, for scientific education is (as Thomas S. Kuhn observed) as dogmatic as orthodox theology. For years on end, students only see problems that have just one solution, precise to three digits. Uncertainty is either reduced to error-bars or ignored. So when real, irreducible uncertainties are confronted, such scientists lack the tools for coping. It was to help remedy that bad situation that my colleagues and I developed NUSAP and Post-Normal Science. I’m not surprised that lots of people believe that I am betraying the ideals of science, because they have learned them in a very brittle form.
re Jerome Ravetz: June 15, 2010 at 8:15 am
With all due respect, that’s a load of hogwash. It simply creates another level of abstract confusion that removes the possibility of communicating anything useful to the the ultimate ‘paying stakeholders’ in all of this, namely the general public. NUSAP, and Pedigree matrices?? Sure thing! Every Afghan taxi driver knows all about those. Give me a break!
The languages of the planet, and in particular the English language, are replete with common words and phrases that are perfectly adequate for communicating uncertainty. In the case of ‘climate science’, the most useful of these phrases is: “We don’t know much for sure, but it doesn’t appear to be anything worrisome.”. There is little difficulty involved in understanding the notion that the world has gotten warmer by (at most) 0.007°C per year during the past 100 years or so. If we are fortunate, this will continue.
/dr.bill
The Hulme paper did not say that only a few dozen climate scientists agree with the IPCC claims on global warming. It said, “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.”. That’s why Hulme has released a correction to the reports like Solomon’s that have misrepresented what he said,
http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Correcting-reports-of-the-PiPG-paper.pdf
“Various newspaper and internet blogs are reporting me as saying that the IPCC has ‘misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming’ whereas in fact only ‘a few dozen experts’ did so…First, I did not say the ‘IPCC misleads’ anyone – it is claims that are made by other commentators, such as the caricatured claim I offer in the paper, that have the potential to mislead.”
That the 2500 or so climate scientists agreed with AGW was not disputed; what Hulme was saying is that there are only a few dozen at best experts in any particular field within climate science who are qualified to make a judgement on a particular specialty. Having 2500 climate scientists support the claim that “human activities are having a significant influence on the climate” is less meaningful when most are not “experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies”. But Hulme never said those 2500 scientists didn’t support the claim; he was questioning the relevance of the support.
Claiming “The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” and that Hulme’s paper supported that conclusion, is a lie.
Jerome Ravetz,
You appear to be re-framing the discussion. I specifically referred to individuals and organizations, and I stand by my statement @0845 above. If you need examples I can provide them.
When you write that climate scientists “…have high competence and total integrity,” I assume you are referring to only a few individuals that you personally know, even though at first glance it appears you are defending the status quo. Are you?
anyway 2500 is too round a number for me … almost flippant, where’s the list?
To: Smokey
I know only a few personally, but from their discussions of their work I could see that they operate in a colleague community with similar high standards. I have no problem with corruption in science, ever since I wrote about the Mohole project in 1963. I would guess that the quality in climate-science research is as variable as anywhere else, probably somewhat less on average because of all the hype. As to the leaders and insiders that you mention, it seems clear that something is very wrong there. As I have said before, what I find particularly interesting about Climategate is that the corruption was not the result of outside pressures from industry or government, but was self-induced. This is quite common in politics, but to the best of my knowledge not so common in science. I am still sorting it all out, along with the history of my own opinions about it.
These days the media likes to make superstars out of all sorts of odd categories of profession. We have superstar chefs, superstar gardeners, superstar investment pundits, you name it. A few of the climate clique decided they fancied some of the action. The more outrageous the claims, the more the media lapped it up. The stardom rubbed off on the employing institutions too. Universities vied with each other to become ‘Global Warming Central’. Stanford, in particular, because it already had links with NASA built up it’s climate careerists. Superstar Stephen Schneider, a retinue of climate commentators, corporate promoters, legal eagles specialising in environmental issues and so on.
The momentum of all this carried the ‘scientists’ on whom all the other hangers on depend for their continued professional raison d’etre to dizzy new heights of massive grant money acquisitions, aided and abetted by their university pro deans and vice chancellors, in the newly competitive world of privately financed higher education.
Now they are in so deep they cannot, will not, see that as old uncle Albert said, it only takes one fact to demolish a scientific theory. They have wriggled and spun, decieved and exaggerated, dissembled and ignored, vilified and threatened to keep the gravy train from being derailed.
Such is the debilitating effect outside influence has on scientific truth and the progress of knowledge. Science needs to be separated from those who see it as a means to an end other than the pursuit of understanding. Unfortunately for the superstars, this is the end of the line.
Jerome Ravetz,
Thank you for that post. Maybe we aren’t as far apart in our views as I had suspected.
One thing I firmly believe, and for which there is massive evidence, is that money has completely corrupted climate science. In order to keep the grant money flowing, a relatively small clique has acted as gatekeepers to the professional journals. The message has been made clear: support the CAGW message or you will have a difficult, if not impossible chance to be published. The only ones somewhat exempt are those of Prof Lindzen’s stature; refusing to publish a paper by the head of MIT’s atmospheric sciences department would raise eyebrows.
But thousands of younger, lesser known scientists get the message: play ball, or go hungry. It is a stark choice, and for those with families it isn’t even a choice.
To make matters much worse, outside NGOs and quangos provide grants that are only thinly disguised payola. Witness the recent $1,800,000 payoff given to Michael Mann, ostensibly for a study of mosquito vectors. If the granting organization was truly interested in a mosquito study, they would have directed about one-tenth the money to a biologist or an epidemiologist, rather than a geologist, and received a better study. But what they were doing was sending a very public message showing which side gets the money.
Further, those outside entities work at cross purposes to the interests of the taxpayers. By funneling grants only to those promoting CAGW, they are locking in those opinions; the same scientists cannot then turn around and give the taxpaying public an honest assessment.
Outside money, from both government and NGOs, has thoroughly corrupted climate science. Those entities have a pro-CAGW agenda [and most have a world government agenda], and honest science only gets in the way. Ending the system of grant giving in favor of straight salaried jobs is the answer. But that is practically impossible when both the grantors and the grantees, and their university employers, all favor the current system. So climate science is corrupted, while other more legitimate sciences are starved of needed funding, and the public is made to believe that “carbon” is evil.
There are no new relevations here, and the claims quoted by Hulme are not those made by the IPCC, but by other media commentators. The strength of the concensus lies not in the number of active researchers working on detection and atribution, which is of course a small proportion of climate scientists, but in (a) the opinion of other qualified people who find the conclusions and supporting evidence convincing, all the surveys show that this is a large majority, and that the proportion rises as the specialism approaches active climate researcher, and (b) the proportion of published studies that either support or are consistent with the concensus statement. In this area the proportion approaches unanimity.
A small proportion of biologists actively research Darwinian evolution, still it is not ‘phoney’, an ‘exaggeration’ nor ‘disingenous’ to assert that there is a concensus in the discipline in support of that theory ……
Next.
Smokey says:
June 15, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Witness the recent $1,800,000 payoff given to Michael Mann, ostensibly for a study of mosquito vectors.
The British solar research effort was recently gutted by a cut in funding of a similar amount.
It stinks.