It’s not news to regular readers here that climate scientologists are practicing pseudo-science when they trot out their 50 and 100 year projections with hysterical prophecies of doom attached. We’ve observed them engaging in statistical malpractice to manufacture deliberately misleading hockey stick graphs.
We’ve also seen them revise the historical surface temperature record to increase the warming trend, in spite of the eminently qualified scientists illustrating that they already have a warming bias in the surface temperature.
All this, and the fact that they ignore the obvious limitations of climate models and happily trumpet the projections as if they had come from proven, tested methods rather than the crude and experimental tools they are.
So it’s no surprise to see us calling it pseudo-science. But Luboš Motl brings our attention to this startling article by Mike Hulme:
The other important characteristic of scientific knowledge – its openness to change as it rubs up against society – is rather harder to handle. Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs where the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken.
It has been labelled “post-normal” science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science – who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy – as on the facts of science.
The whole thing needs to be read to appreciate what a breathtakingly honest break from normal science this guy is talking about. And who is Mike Hulme?:
I am a research climatologist specialising in global climate change, the evaluation of climate models, the development and application of climate change scenarios and impact models, African climate and desertification, and have published extensively in all of these fields. I have been responsible for managing multi-institutional research projects funded by, among others, the UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), the European Commission (e.g. the ECLAT-2 Concerted Action) and WWF International. From 1997 to 2001 I was a member of the IPCC Task Group on Climate Scenarios for Impacts Assessment and co-Manager of the IPCC Data Distribution Centre for climate scenario information for the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the IPCC. I was a Convening Lead Author for Chapter 13 on climate change scenario development and Lead Author for Chapter 10 on regional climate information in the WGI report of the IPCC TAR.
Well, I feel so much better that all of that is now officially recognized as the product of “post-normal” science.
What else does he say? I can’t excerpt better than Luboš has done:
Hulme tells us that if the scientists are going to be listened to, they must “recognize the social limits of their truth seeking” – WOW. They must thus “trade truth for influence”– WOW. He also says that the “climate change is too important to be left to scientists” – WOW – “least of all the normal ones” – WOW. Hulme promotes the idea that the climate science should become a “post-normal science” – WOW. He says that the “danger” of the “normal science” is that it assumes that the truth is found before the policies are created – WOW.
I agree. WOW. We’ve seen these people at work and pointed out what they’ve been doing, but even I have never been quite so blunt as Mike Hulme has described it himself.
Update: Melanie Phillips comments on this article, too.
The eco-wackos along with AL GORE and a CHURCH OF GAIA are radicals fanatics who are beging their own inqusition of conservative christians who reject global warming and the gaia earth mother poppycock
It just keeps getting nuttier all the time!
And where is the “Informed and Balanced” background to be found?? Aside from a few articles in the MSM which seem to question some the motivations behind the zealots and hucksters precious little!
IMO – the main reason the MSM has taken ANY informed stance against these people is simply for the benefit of the Controversy!
Meanwhile the Self Righteous crusaders and pseudo- scientists like Hulme are running amok while being sustained in their socialist gulag of Politically Correct and research with the “Approved” results and interpretations! Sustained at the expense of taxpayers who are forced to fund their existence!
Fork em all!
Oh yes! And this explains a lot about what the IPCC report actually is!
Jaeger
Great find. I was as gob smacked as you were by Hulme’s admissions.
Did I read this correctly? Is the overiding premise of post normal science philisophical rather than empirical? Subjective rather than objective? Emotional rather than cognitive?
Is this an admission that “climate change science” has officially morphed into the “religion” that many of us unwashed suspected it is?
Or did I miss something?
Yikes.
Syncro
Did anyone else notice his complete dismissal of Singer and Avery?
“Deploying the machinery of scientific method allows us to filter out hypotheses – such as those presented by Singer and Avery – as being plain wrong.”
What a breathtaking arrogance, and a revelation. Even Hulme can’t follow his nuttiness on “post-normal science” and has to resort to unfounded assertion to dismiss his critics.
If it has morphed into a religion then I demand separation of church and state!
Incredible. Specious sophistry. Garbage. Notice that the guy is NOT a scientist; he’s a SOCIAL scientist, working within models. Models not reality.
Post-normal science? What’s that? Abnormal? Non-science? Nonsense?
How about such assertions as ‘the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases warms the planet’ – a reductionist claim because it ignores the solar cycle.
And his astonishing rejection of science, when he insists that science is ‘modified through interaction with society’. No it isn’t; science rests on objective data gathering, repeatable tests, objective causality and correlations, and a rejection of ‘social interpretations’.
The author says almost nothing about their actual work and tries to denigrate it by claiming that they have written ‘apparently scientific arguments’ (how about that ‘apparently’?) only ‘to further their deeper (yet unexpressed) values and beliefs”. WOW. The arrogance of the postmodern Reader, who rejects the words of the Author, informs us that the Author has ‘values and beliefs’ which the Author hasn’t expressed – and that these are the cause of the Author’s opinions. Not science, not facts, not data. WOW.
Oh – and what does ‘collective action over private enterprise’ have to do with science? Nothing.
Yes, science CAN find the truth, even if this author rejects such a reality. How dare he – “in order to make progress about how we manage climate change we have to take science off centre stage”.
What does this mean?
It means that the Kyoto cultists have declared that they refuse to recognize any science that rebuts their cult’s beliefs. Their beliefs, according to them, are not subject to falsification by the findings of science. No way. Their beliefs are ‘outside of science’.
Incredible – but – that’s the postmodern mode. There’s no such thing as truth or facts or data. Only political agendas.
Things are going to get very hot, but not in surface temperature, but between “believers” and skeptics. So hot in fact, I think (to be slightly alarmist) that the violence will not be caused by the weather, but by the earth worshippers.
Look for mass hippie animal/earth worhsipper rallies in the so-called “civilized” world DEMANDING that the others hand over their livelihood, goods, and their wealth as a sacrifice for their cause.
Is Al Gore the anti-Christ?
That’s the real question at hand.
The task at hand is to resist the imposition of a faith-based authoritarianism: eco-sharia.
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html
The biggest admission yet that climate “science” is about the world of the Occult.
It will take strong people, like Tim Ball, to take on this Suzuki, Gore, Mo cult. That is, if one of the five recent death threats doen’t get to him first.
” .. Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.: UK Telegraph.
//www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml
And ya thought burning Witches at the stake was scary ?? Or holistic “medicine” ? Or sacrificial lambs ??
And the BBC and other media will continue to report this man’s words when he frankly admits to deliberate dishonesty. He should be fired.
Could be an indication of growing fear in “the movement” about how shaky the science is. Instad of abandoning their cause, they’ll just set about trying to demolish objective judgement.
Mike Lysenko Hume
Like all you posters here, I have never , since Mr. Bob Mills (M.P. for Red Deer, Alta)outlined the whole Koyota ‘plan’ for us in parliament, just before the Liberanos signed that egregious socialist agreement; belived anything spewed out about the weather being dependant on the activities of people!
Mother nature is master of the fate of weather. Koyota/glob all warming is a ‘cult/groupie thingie’ to enrich billionaire socialists elitists with money and power and to reduce the rest of us to state slaves living in little cells in bleak cities (see Mo tse Strongs’ Habitats for Humanity). POLUTION is the human problem and I am glad to see out new government addressing that problem aggressively.
I think that some Astronomy scientists should be asked so they could explain this 1,500 year changes in weather – it is called Progression of the Equinoxes – occurs on a regular basis every 1,500 years. I would also ask the astronomers to explain ‘Global tilt’ re: the shift of the North Pole from right to left over time. Ancient people knew all about this phenomena, so do the scientists of today. Has no one asked?
It is no wonder people are so confused by this whole subject. The Toronto sun has so many columnists, like Lorrie Goldstein and today Licia Corbella, debunking human-caused global warming. Yet in today’s paper they have a full page article in their “science” section called “Extreme Warning” which states “All experts now agree that human-produced greenhouse gases are warming the earth at an unprecedented speed.” There are accompanying graphics showing the impact of this rapid temperature rise.
Any casual reader of this type of article then walking outside today when its 15 degrees would say “Pretty clear to me on this global warming thing, don’t confuse me with the facts, Susuki and Gore are onto something here.” And can we blame them with the MSM, the schools, and that world leader Dion tell them its all happening.
By the way, since this Mike Hulme rejects science as a valid means of finding out whether/not AGW is true or not, then, he should insist that the IPCC and all other Kyoto cultists stop referring to ‘scientists agreeing with AGW’.
After all, he himself says that science is not objective but has a political agenda – so, those ‘scientists’ are also not objective, they are also thinking in a ‘post-normal scientific’ ie, non-scientific manner.
I still can’t believe someone who is a director of a center that is supposed to be doing climate research could possibly write this:
The danger of a “normal” reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow. Singer has this view of science, as do some of his more outspoken campaigning critics such as Mark Lynas. That is why their exchanges often reduce to ones about scientific truth rather than about values, perspectives and political preferences.
Imagine – people like us trying to establish what is scientifically true. The man runs a lobby group, promoting “values, perspectives and political preferences” – he isn’t engaged in science. Yet there he is as a director of a climate research center and had a very prominent role in the IPCC.
Al’s got a sequel coming out next summer. It will be a blockbuster.
Look for Indiana Gore And The Flatulence Of Doom, coming to theater near you!
>>between “believers” and skeptics
No.
between “worshipers” and skeptics
Doug said: “Look for mass hippie animal/earth worhsipper rallies in the so-called “civilized” world DEMANDING that the others hand over their livelihood, goods, and their wealth as a sacrifice for their cause.”
Ode To Gaia: “”Let My People Come”. …-
Cool the Planet, Save the Arctic:
March 20, 2007 – Washington, DC
Climate Crisis Action Day is your opportunity to ensure that Congress hears your concerns about your climate, your quality of life, and America’s fragile Arctic wilderness. …-
http://ga3.org/climatecrisis/learnmore.html
Poor gore, he has to get a bill passed thru the congress to hold his big kyoto concert. Seems the Mall is already booked and he is asking Senator Reid for permission to hold it at the capitol. Much smaller area. Reid says ok, but needs the permission of congress. Hope they hold up the bill till Aug as his concert is set for July 7.
Doug @ 3.43:
“Is Al Gore the anti-Christ?
That’s the real question at hand.”
Well someone was saying recently, that St.Al was turning water into whine. You might be onto something!
for the far left everything is political…..therefore facts get in the way of the revealed truth….
eco sharia….i like it.