| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Signs, Portents, and the Weather- |
| IPCC 'All Scientists' actually 'A Few Dozen' |
| 2010-06-15 |
| The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on man made 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.' Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia – the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK's most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC's co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on ‘Climate scenario development' for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose |
| #12 "you damn Data-Truthers™. Always demanding real data... are the problem" /Jim C. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-06-15 23:46 |
| #11 Denialist propaganda? LOL. Sign me up and put me in a camp, right Jim C? That is what your camp has proposed after all. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2010-06-15 23:39 |
| #10 I took Jim C's comment seriously. It was first and not from a regular. It shows how worried the warmists are about the sceptics. Notice that he has not returned. Troll. They are on the run and they know it. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-06-15 22:15 |
| #9 maybe so, since the entire IPCC report and supporting documentation seems to have been created "tongue in cheek" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-06-15 21:42 |
| #8 I also took Jim C's comments as sarcasm but I could be wrong. |
| Posted by: eltoroverde 2010-06-15 21:07 |
| #7 I think Jim C's comment is tongue in cheek. |
| Posted by: Angusomp Prince of the French5737 2010-06-15 20:37 |
| #6 To say 2,500 scientists supported the consensus is an outright lie as I have pointed oout for years. We don't know how many of those 2,500 scientists supported the IPCC's conclusions and to what extent they supported them. However, it is a matter of record that there were over 5,000 objections by participating scientists to the IPCC's conclusions (1st or 2nd report, I don't recall which). And tipper is correct. The global warming hysteria has caused the worst environmental damage of my lifetime, mostly from insane biofuels policies and the fact agriculture causes far and away the worst environmental damage. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2010-06-15 19:07 |
| #5 Jim C, Gee, getting you bed-wetting alarmist on message is harder than herding cats. The economic case for global action to stop the destruction of the natural world is even more powerful than the argument for tackling climate change, a major report for the United Nations will declare this summer.The Stern report on climate change, which was prepared for the UK Treasury and published in 2007, famously claimed that the cost of limiting climate change would be around 1%-2% of annual global wealth, but the longer-term economic benefits would be 5-20 times that figure |
| Posted by: tipper 2010-06-15 18:35 |
| #4 Jim C = Michael Mann's sock puppet |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-06-15 16:53 |
| #3 Oh, PIMF. Let me restate, now that I've calmed down a tad. Perhaps I shouldn't have hit Submit on the previous, for which I apologize. There is a big difference between "2,500 scientists", most of whom work far from the field in question and whose opinion is therefore no more valid than mine, and "a few dozen experts". It would have been useful had Professor Hulme compared the number of experts who support the IPCC conclusions, and the number of experts in the field who consider the IPCC work to be a disgraceful corruption of science and therefore illegitimate. As for the IPCC being rendered vulnerable to outside criticism, Professor Hulme and his supporting colleagues have a good deal to worry about beyond an exaggeration of the number of scientists qualified to support the conclusions. There is the concern that they will be prosecuted for taking government funds under false pretenses, for instance, and lose not only their jobs, and their careers, but their very freedom as a result. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-06-15 15:51 |
| #2 Perhaps Professor Hulme was indeed quoted out of context, Jim C. dear. However, he has a bit of a problem as the head of an institute whose most famous climate researcher has been shown to have invented most of his data out of whole cloth, except where he merely normalized it to reach results not at all supported by what little raw data that can actually be found, having "misplaced" the rest. And yes, I'm sure that 2,500 of the world's scientists did reach the consensus as claimed. The problem is that so many of them are not working anywhere near the field, and so their opinion is no more valid than is mine, given that I'm a little housewife in the American Midwest, completely lacking an impressive string of letters after my name. No doubt you're aware of the shocking number of key claims had to be repudiated in the latest U.N. report, because the data was either falsified, non-existent, or resulting from transposed digits or operation signs not caught in the proofreading. I am the child, wife, and friend of scientists, Mr. C., not to mention having worked briefly in the field. I am insulted that such a travesty of the scientific method is paraded in front of us by the "climate change" proponants, never mind that demands that we change our ways and spend funds we as a society do not have based on it. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-06-15 15:39 |
| #1 This article is typical denialist propaganda; in fact one of the worst cases of outright lying by omission. Mike Hulme is simply being quoted out of context, as a little research will show. |
| Posted by: Jim C. 2010-06-15 15:05 |