This is just rich. Another point for the denialists. I wonder how this is now going to play out with the Cap & Trade crowd and the rest of the group. A bigger question might be why do so many people WANT the global warming scenario to be true?
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.”
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.
Let’s go back to the global cooling thesis!
Related link: Academic paper on the IPCC with amazing bibliography. A goldmine for skeptics.
Found by Jason Price.
Levin’s book has a wonderful chapter on Eco-statism. After reading this book, I have a much more clear understanding of what is happening to our country.
Anytime the proposed solution to ANY problem is a global government with massive power to direct all aspects of business and life, the problem and those proposing it all are suspect.
There is NO problem worse than the “solution” of a powerful global government.
Since when is science based on consensus anyway?
When you don’t have any verifiable evidence?
Bracing for the all the frantic posts from the AGW acolytes who worship at the feet of the AGW Priests (aka pseudo-scientists)…
#2 Agree. Similarly, a large Federal government is no solution to the problems this country.
#3 Agree. Everyone “knew” the Sun went around the Earth, and everyone “knew” swine flu was a pandemic. Science is a “system” of knowing, by proofs and arguments, not the knowledge itself. But the Eco-statists have shanghai-ed the public image of science for their own purposes.
Gee, I can hardly wait until this is covered on the nightly news and other Obama lapdogs.
Cue the crickets..
JCD
Before spreading propaganda you should do your research. Propaganda that is so run amoke that the subject felt the need to correct it in a page long statement.
http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Correcting-reports-of-the-PiPG-paper.pdf
Global warming is one of those perpetual debate style topics. Everyone debates the latest piece of information as if their “side” depends on it.
It is rather boring.
I know people like to talk about the weather, but it has become ridiculous.
One thing that is provable and demonstrated here every other day is the anti-regulation hysterics who will accept any argument against simple truths: WTC collapse, bank regulation, deep water drilling, etc.
So, when the truth is more debatable such as the case here when only “modeling” is the best explanation, there is no hope.
There is one huge hurdle to the no-think head in the sand objectionists: just how many trillions of tons of carbon can be dug out of the ground, burned, and turned into co2 before effects can be measured and trended?
What is the acceptable “risk” factor?
While the average global temperture and resultant sea level rise 100 years from now is subject to guess/debate, steady sea ocean rise and acidification is going on RIGHT NOW.
The nay sayers “may be” correct but any position that is more full of holes than the theory being negated is very suspect.
IOW–you’all are idiots.
Swimming in their own waste, they say the water is just fine: Silly Hoomans.
And they are ROLLING in.
“I wonder how this is now going to play out with the Cap & Trade crowd and the rest of the group. A bigger question might be why do so many people WANT the global warming scenario to be true?”
Shortly after the IPCC report was published, there were reports that some of the reported authors wanted their names removed from the report but that request was denied. Within days that news item disappeared. This item will probably disappear just as quickly.
In reponse to your second question: same three word answer as always: follow the money.
#7 – J : His clarification is just as damning. A few people have written a report and declared it a consensus.
BY the way, I don’t recall seeing “consensus” listed as part of the scientific method. If I can convince a group of timekeepers, in the face of little evidence and fairly equal amounts of opposing evidence, that a day is 25 hours long. Does that make it so?
Democracy does not equal science.
#11 Maricopa
Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem because that is not at all what he says.
J – Read it again. No “2500” consensus. Plain as day. Keep worshiping though. Can’t have dogma without guys like you.
#13 pedro
Hey. Did you read the memo? The guy who they claim said all of this bullshit says that it was not what he said.
#14 Anon
No one said it was a 2500 consensus. Only you.
My Top Sarge had an oft used expression when dealing with troop operational planning that really does fit just about any subject:
“Every swinging dick has an opinion.”
Ha, ha. None of us knows wtf we are talking about. The effects of co2 increase in the atmosphere over the next 1-3oo years.
So, it really is “sublime.” The more firm you know your opinion to be ((as opposed to what some hormonal rush may command you to post here)) then about as objectively as any such subjective issue can be measured: you are an idiot.
Anon: how firm is your opinion that AGW is a fraud? Can you rate it on a scale or otherwise characterize it?
All emotion, not a rational thought between them. How were the sun and wind gods ever disobeyed?
While waiting for Anon to grow a pair, we might turn to JCD’s pot stirring rebuke: “A bigger question might be why do so many people WANT the global warming scenario to be true?” ////
Let’s see: Why do so many people want the Gulf Oil Well capped?
If your car is headed towards a cliff, why do so many people want to change the car’s direction?
If man’s acitivities are leading to a mega global catastrophe 100 years from now, why should we do anything about it?
Yes, these are very important questions going to the root of what it means to be a human being. Way to focus.
J said, “No one said it was a 2500 consensus. Only you.”
So, you agree that there is no consensus on the case of AGW. That is what Mike Hulme also says.
See, that was easy, wasn’t it?
Seems like the consensus among QUALIFIED CLIMATE SCIENTISTS is more like 20,000 even while Mobile Oil has a standing $10,000 offer to anyone willing to whore themselves out.
http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm
Anon–how do you plan to spend your money, or don’t you qualify to have an opinion?
Hee, hee. Like taking candy from a baby.
Not that I ever would………
Ummmm…..
J
Not to go hyperbolic but ALL the AGW bed wetters are claiming 2500 scientists are in consensus. Al Gore touts it ALL the time.
So shut your MiniTru factory of a mouth unless you want to be called out each and every time.
And also yes, the fact of the matter is that his attempt of a back-peddle letter only further points out that there is no consensus and also points out the GLARING lack of actual scientist involved in the whole review process!!!
And Bobbo… I expected more from you…
Claiming that AGW skeptics want the oil to keep filling the sea is the same as not wanting to do something about a non problem is disingenuous at best. There is no hard science ANYWHERE that even remotely links our activities to global changes in the climate.
Matter of fact, there is PLENTY of evidence that shows that all the changes are merely part of the natural variability of the climate and that there is nothing we can do to interfere either negatively or positively.
The ONLY reason that there is a hard push for AGW agendas is that it is the only one that remotely allows for a massive global governance to be put into place. CO2 is COMPLETELY natural but if it is made law that the governments of the world (Or world government) can also enforce this, then quite literally, they now have the power to control EVERYTHING you do as all things we do (Including LIVING) produce CO2.
Open your eyes people…
#14 Anon
Apparently you don’t understand what the original paper nor the memo was about. The “2500” number is a hypothetical claim. Not a real one. He makes that statement to warn people to be careful in their claims and to not over reach.
#22 Jason
Your argument is so cute. It is like that of a little girls. When will you dolts understand this. Saying that 2500 scientists are in consensus does not mean that all 2500 scientists agree 100% Never did never will. That was the whole purpose of Mike Hulme report and paper. While it is 100% truthful that 2500 scientists are in consensus he thinks it can mislead stupid people like you and many others that it is being said that all 2500 are in complete agreement and can give dolts like you the ability to say idiotic things like “see they lied not all scientists are in agreement”
Dolt!
I thought the number had grown to nearly 7 billion scientists who believed in AGW.
J said, “The “2500″ number is a hypothetical claim. Not a real one. He makes that statement to warn people to be careful in their claims and to not over reach.”
Yes, of course I know. Just as has been pointed out that there is no evidence of overwhelming consensus about AGW. Again, as pointed out by Hulme and agreed to by you.
Hey Jason===here’s a little clue that you might check yourself: when an issue is subject to UN Committee review and reporting over a 20 year period and is hotly debated at various forums around the world and someone wants to claim: “There is no hard evidence….” You’ve gone from fair debate to bat shit crazy.
Being a skeptic myself, and not that interested in the subject except as a entre to how Silly Hoomans try to think, what hard evidence can I recall in two minutes?==
Co2 is a green house gas.
Co2 levels in the atmosphere and the oceans has been steadily going up the last 100 years.
Co2 is increased by burning coal and oil.
Humans have been burning coal and oil for two hundred years.
Most natural cycles have been identified and partially understood.
Sea level has been steadily rising the last 100 years.
Oceans are steadily acidifying from the increase in co2.
Many AGW Deniers are also LIEbertardians.
Anon has no balls.
Yes, I think there is “some” hard evidence to at least cause an inquiry into the subject?
BTW–what part of “none of us know wtf we are talking about” did you ignore?
#24–skeptical==quit jumping the gun. That figure is from the year 2150 when there will still be vested interests living above the new ocean level who are claiming the condition is only temporary and we should still drill, baby, drill.
Some people are just that way.
Who needs 2500? after all there was only 1 Jesus
I’m no fan of Glenn Beck, but I’m scared of the CCX and all the money they’re about to suck out of my pocket.
Oh, what a fine deal, sponsored by Al Gore, Goldman Sachs, the Shore Bank (investigate their primary stockholders), SEIU and other fine institutions.
Geez, it’s enough to scare me to death. I’m betting these folks would actually pay “scientists” to back up global warming. Beck may be wacky, but his research is accurate as far as I can determine. Maybe you’d like to do your own research and report back.
#25 Anon
Ok let me explain for you are apparently stupid
A consensus does not equal 100%.
There is a 2500 scientist consensus about global warming
There is an overwhelming consensus amongst scientists about global warming.
because a consensus does not equal 100% you can therefore conclude….
Not all 2500 scientists agree completely on the report.
Not all scientists agree that there is global warming.
These two facts do not change however the fact that the first 3 are also true.
Correct J. There is ZERO evidence that >50% of climate scientists agree with AGW. So, as stated, no consensus.