Free Markets, Free People


About That Climate Change Consensus …

What was always suspected, yet never proved, has now been exposed:

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.”

You’re shocked I’m sure. But just who is Mike Hulme that he’d have any credibility to make such a bold claim? As it turns out, he’s not only a professor at the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (yes, that one), and the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, he also was a co-ordinating lead author on a portion of the IPCC

Not exactly a climate-denialist. But you do have to wonder why he’s making this claim now? Why didn’t he expose the consensus fraud while in the middle of his work on the IPCC?

Actually, if you read the paper (pdf) in which his statement appears, it seems that Hulme wasn’t so much making an accusation as he was simply making an offhand comment:

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’. Equally, as Yearley (2009) explains, IPCC consensus-making is an exercise in collective judgement about subjective (or Bayesian) likelihoods in areas of uncertain knowledge. Consensus-making in the IPCC has been largely driven by the desire to communicate climate science coherently to a wide spectrum of policy users – ‘to construct knowledge’ (Weingart, 1999) – but in so doing communicating uncertainties have been down-played (van der Sluijs, 1998). As Oppenheimer et al. (2007: 1506) remark: “The establishment of consensus by the IPCC is no longer as critical to governments as [is] a full exploration of uncertainty.”

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.

Incredibly, Hulme’s point here is that making completely false claims, such as that a consensus on AGW has been reached by “2,500 of the world’s leading scientists” (or maybe it’s 4,000!), is merely the aggressive flip-side to being too conservative in failing to make unsupported claims on which no one agrees. At least, he compares these two “criticisms” of the IPCC efforts to build consensus as if they were two ends of a spectrum. Sadly, when it comes to climate “science” this is exactly where the problem lies.

Instead of dealing in actual science (where hypotheses are proposed, experiments and data-collection ensue, and actual results inform us as to what is happening), we instead are offered catastrophic theories unsupported by little if any actual data but that, by golly gee, sure do have a whole lot of “consensus” behind them. After all, who are we peons to doubt the “experts”? It’s not as if a group of people has ever been persuaded to … ahem, “adjust” their arguments in order to acquire sweeping political power. One wonders if the word “cabal” exists in any dictionaries in the University of East Anglia’s libraries.

If anyone working on the IPCC wants to know why their reputation is in the tank, perhaps they’d better take a look at what the public “consensus” is regarding fraudulent claims designed to increase the fraudsters’ power. And then maybe they should reacquaint themselves with actual science.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

13 Responses to About That Climate Change Consensus …

  • I’m fairly certain that Erb will not present himself in this thread.

    “The science is settled” indeed

    • You mean Professor Burp?

    • He might show up. He has no shame.

    • He might show up, whistling past that graveyard just as loud as he can.

    • Well, as I explained in this thread, there’s no point in responding to you mindless, Nazi-like, sterile, inbred deniers.

      But I didn’t lie when I said I was going to stop commenting here. Oh, no. I just whipped out a new multiple truth when I came back. Which I totally didn’t do just because I desperately crave someone to lecture down to so I can validate my own self worth. Nope, it’s research. You guys are like aborigines, and I’m the professor studying you. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

      Besides, I’m having fun. Which totally isn’t evidence of a mental sickness because I have fun by irritating other people. See, when the left does it, it’s fun. When the right does, it’s being Nazi-like.

      And hey, I also wasn’t lying when I put out two completely different positions on post-modernism either. Multiple truth time again. Don’t you guys get it? You’ll never pin a lie on me, because my godlike powers of post-modern political science are always enough for me to skitter out from under any charge you make. And if you don’t agree, you doth protest too much.

      So you guys just keep on denying the settled science of climate change, until unlikely quantum events superpose and the Hindenberg Uncertainty Principle starts melting all the ice caps. Then you’ll be wishing you understood Dilbert Space the way I do.

  • 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.

    I suggest that this is a tacit and unwitting admission that the IPCC was playing the propaganda game and really had no interest at all in science.  As has been written many times, SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT CONSENSUS.  Science does not “generate consensus”; it attempts to gather evidence to prove – or disprove – hypothoses.  As I read Hulme’s statement, the IPCC was into attempting to con or even bully people into accepting their hypothosis as a way to convince MORE people into accepting it.  This is the tactic of a cult or a pyramid marketting scheme, NOT science.

    Sigh…

    I’m guessing that this story, like so many about the AGW fraud, will go down the MiniTru memory hole even while the idiots in Washington, led by Cap’n Kickass, will continue to try to use AGW (along with the Gulf spill) to pass economy-wrecking legislation and impose economy-wrecking regulations.  Can we not sue the IPCC, CRU, Algore and the other chief architects of this fraud before it’s too late????

  • “Can we not sue the IPCC, CRU, Algore…” Must be why Tipper is in such a hurry to bail out with her half. I wonder if fraudelent conveyance would come into play here?

    • I wondered, and saw one story out there, about whether the Al/Tipper separation is just an excuse for them to cash in some of their “green” holdings before the bottom falls out.  If “cap and trade”, or whatever name it bears when (or if) it ever emerges from committee, fails, Al and Tipper could lose the majority of the current net value.

  • “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