It is fitting this is published near Halloween time in Nature, because the IPCC is full of scare stories.
IPCC: Climate panel is ripe for examination
Mike Hulme & Martin Mahony Nature 502, 624 (31 October 2013) doi:10.1038/502624c
- Published online 30 October 2013
Sociologists of science wish to study the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for the same reason that they want to examine other loci at which scientific knowledge is made — whether in a laboratory, the field, a museum or at a conference. We too approached the IPCC in autumn 2010 with a request to study it from the inside; we too were told ‘no’ (see Nature 502, 281; 2013).
We therefore had to rely on self-reported accounts. Using document analysis and interviews with lead authors, we analysed how authors navigate the distinction between scientific description and value judgements, for example when offering information pertaining to the definition of ‘dangerous climate change’.
The IPCC has become a dominant institution in climate science — in the assessment of knowledge for policy-making, and in how assessment practices alter empirical and computer-simulated climate science. Global knowledge assessments such as those undertaken by the IPCC call for carefully documented systematic studies by trained ethnographers.
Let us hope that the IPCC will recognize itself as a legitimate object for scholarly investigation this time around.
Mike Hulme, Martin Mahony
King’s College London, UK.
==============================================================
Josh previously provided some levity:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@Latitude: “…reading challenged”
Yep, wrong AGW. There’s the global one. And the graph one.
@Jennifer Hubbard: “Although I am a historian and hence see sociologists as disciplinary parasites who have appropriated history’s domain …”
I’ve always considered a Historian to be a Sociologist that can’t be sued for libel.
lemon says:
October 31, 2013 at 8:48 am
Why doesnt someone offer a Michael Mann Bobblehead Doll made… There has never been a better subject
Hey Lemon, I second that!
If the Authors “want to examine… loci at which scientific knowledge is made,”
Why not just say what we already know as ‘virtually certain’: the ipcc’s method is almost exclusively “computer-simulated climate science” = gigo; ‘Expertly’ guided by demonizing CO2 and disasterizing Global Warming and spurred onward always by the ethical maxim that “We ‘mainstream’ Climate Scientists
are all gonna die from Green Back Starvation Syndrome if we don’t gin up some more demonizing and disasterizing ‘Climate Science’ before it’s too late!”?
It sounds like the Authors didn’t get enough inside info from Mr.Foia and want to directly ~”record from the inside”, and the Nature article says :
“The proposal, part of a larger ‘assessment of assessments’ funded by the US National Science Foundation, could offer insight into the ways that social dynamics, unconscious biases and seemingly mundane rules affect the final product — and what might be done to improve the process….
“[Climate Scientist ] Oppenheimer and his colleagues argued that the IPCC tends towards caution and errs “on the side of least drama.”
Ah-ha, the Ipcc its too cautious, needs to deemphasize uncertainty on SLR, for example, such that an anything’s -possible giant SLR means that “We all might-could die if we don’t do something really stupid, before it’s too late!”
It sounds like the Authors should just study themselves, to find that their brains operate the same way as those of “mainstream” Climate Scientists’ and their Warming Models do: motivated garbage in, money out.
tags Methods: It’s Models Modelling their own Modelling Models; Hulm: the main goal of Climate Science is really to ~”eliminate the obscene wealth inequality between the rich and poor nations”; Nut Cases: our cup runneth over…….
Sociologists of science!! S’truth, here we have one of the worst of the corrupted ‘humanities’ going to study the IPCC. I believe the IPCC needs to be investigated but not by a bunch of social(og)ists anti-scientists. Perhaps a real scientific panel and the police would do best.
Perhaps referring to the “Climate Models” as Climate Science would be more accurately referred to as “Virtual Science” since they seem to have as much in common as Virtual Reality does with Actual Reality
The IPCC should be closed down immediately for abuse of power, data manipulation and plain fraud. And exactly that should be the scope of any investigation. Period.
“Let us hope that the IPCC will recognize itself as a legitimate object for scholarly investigation this time around.”
Why would they? When your intent and actions are to commit fraud in pursuit of a political agenda, ‘scholarly investigations’ of your biased activities are the last thing you will consider or allow!
MtK
jorgekafkazar says:
October 31, 2013 at 8:47 am
Is my eyesight going or is that UNEP logo mooning us?
HA! How perfectly apropos!
MtK
Thanks as always, Josh, great stuff.
w.
As I said, do the math, count the cash and close down the IPCC: http://iceagenow.info/2013/10/math-count-cash/
Mikey Mann, Lewandowsky, and other members of the Team constantly complain about ‘deniers’ being conspiracy theorists. Just read Mikey’s tweets, Lewandowsky’s publications, and the climategate emails. If those two and the rest of the Team aren’t conspiracy theorists, no one is.
lemon says:
“Why doesnt someone offer a Michael Mann Bobblehead Doll made… There has never been a better subject.”
But think about how big the head would have to be…
“Is my eyesight going or is that UNEP logo mooning us?”
Jeeze, it DOES look like its mooning us.
What the hell is a sociologist of science? Kari Norgaard stewing in formaldehyde?
Of course, my favorite method for finding out the system of meanings in the lives of a cultural group is to simply say, “Fossil fuels are beneficial because they provide abundant and inexpensive energy for the most people. They use it for travel, information storage and retrieval, recreation, refrigeration, and many other necessities and conveniences of life.”
The ensuing “response” should provide plenty of material for your qualitative ethnological research. (: Go try it on Youtube right now. It’s fun. See how fast you can get snipped, moderated, banned and cussed at.
‘Let us hope that the IPCC will recognize itself as a legitimate object
for scholarly investigationof derision this time around.’ There, sorted.Hulme? Oreskes?
So that means they’re disappointed with the lack of progress in cultural marxism and need to see what goes wrong at the UN’s pseudoscientists.
Will we ever see a list of the delegates who in Stockholm concocted the latest issue by IPCC on what the public and politicians should think about Climate Change?
Hey, Tom J and Everyone on WUWT,
HAPPY HALLOWEEN!
(how could one NOT be on-topic on a sociology thread, lol)
A little Vince Guaraldi and the Peanuts gang to brighten your day:
— Intro. to “It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown”
— “The Great Pumpkin Waltz”
— And, in the end, the greatest of these is, love.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIWh_YIRQuM
#(:))
*****************
btw: I’m with John Robertson and others above:
a criminal investigation is what is called for, here.
I read Nature 502, 281: 2013 and saw the names Micheal Oppenheimer and Naomi Oreskes and a brief elation quickly disappeared.
However, I did see from Oppenheimer “recognizes his own biases”
and from Oreskes “will promote transparency”
I have to ask: Can there be some kernel of objectivity in the subjective sea?
Donna Laframboise scooped these snoozing sociologists by a mile. But then she is only a journalist and not a peer reviewed sociologist.
“… IPCC Climate panel is ripe for examination…”
Possible spelling error: for ripe read tripe?
– – – – – – – –
Study it but as a preventative strategy only.
Certainly, the IPCC should remain temporarily intact but in suspended animation while an independent of the UN audit in performed in full view of the public. Let’s audit it for a year but in the year no new assessment activity or policy activism should be allowed. Then, after we fully understand its essential and comprehensive corruption and scientific dishonesty from the audit, we should dissolve the IPCC by Dec 31 2014.
No future reinvention of an IPCC-like undertaking is the the purpose of my proposed audit of the IPCC. Preventative measures.
John
Re: The very generous Mr. John Whitman at 2:36pm: “…
afterwe now fully understand its essential and comprehensive corruption and scientific dishonesty … (therefore,) we should dissolve the IPCC by Dec. 31, 2013.” (edits mine)As to your fine idea of preventive measures…. only a permanent, powerful, spotlight, shining on the truth will do that. We truthtellers must remain, even though we have won the debate, forever vigilant. The rats will always be lurking. We can, at least, keep them in the corners.
And we shall. They scuttle out and do some nastiness for awhile, but, inevitably a Jim Cripwell (with A-th-y Watts’ stalwart aid) breaks out his trusty flashlight and shouts out: “I’m so annoyed with this… !” And the before long, the rats slink away… .
Speaking of the “IPCC: Climate panel is ripe for examination,” that reminds me.
Q: What does a maniac do when he is lost in the woods?
A: He finds a psychopath.
Anyways, so think of the almost unlimited knowledge to be gained in the study of obsessions, disorders, syndromes, manias, psychosis, narcissistic conditions, and halucinations.