What an admission! Let’s read that one again. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking. Of course not. The facts don’t support it. It’s not true. So, says Hulme, let’s abolish the need to establish the facts and the truth and impose the theory on the basis of — what’s that again — ‘values and beliefs’. In other words, climate change science has got to be anti-science. It’s got to be anti-truth. It’s got to be nothing more than an ideology.
You can find scientists, including apparently prominent ones with lots of credentials, that will say anything just to get their name in the media. Just like any other group that you might care to name.
I wonder what basis you suppose for a worldwide conspiracy that consists of warning people what might happen, and what is already happening, and what we can do, if anything, to at least stop contributing to the process. Just for publicity, do you think?
Pro AGW theorists has this one big idea about climate change (warmer or cooler)- Bad humans do bad things that lead the earth to go sometimes hotter and sometimes cooler. Now that is definitely post normal science
Originally posted by Robbie Writer: Rather than reading Melanie Phillips, an outspoken right-wing journalist, wouldn't it be better to read the original article she was refering to:
First of all thanks Robbie for the link (for once it is useful). I rarely agree with Melanie but this time around I do. Even by the standards of confused logic set by the Guardian, this must take the cake. Only goes to show the fallibility of professors of our reputed scientific institutions.
The only bit I could understand and probably sympathise is this bit 'Lack of such reflective transparency is the problem with "unstoppable global warming", and with some other scientific commentators on climate change. Such a perspective also opens a chink of weakness in the authority of the latest IPCC science findings.' Now that is something I can wholly align with
Originally posted by APL: Melanie Phillips blog says it all: What an admission! Let’s read that one again. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking. Of course not. The facts don’t support it. It’s not true. So, says Hulme, let’s abolish the need to establish the facts and the truth and impose the theory on the basis of — what’s that again — ‘values and beliefs’. In other words, climate change science has got to be anti-science. It’s got to be anti-truth. It’s got to be nothing more than an ideology.
I bet you haven't read the Guardian article by Hulme. I don' think it's very well written Melanie Phillips quotes him out of context and then blatantly misinterprets what he says, to the point of outright lying. He CERTAINLY does not say, as she implies, that "the facts don't support global warming". He makes it perfect clear that in fact, they do.
What Hulme actually says is that whether we like it or not, everyone -- especially policy makers -- interpret scientific evidence in the context of preconceived values and assumptions. He points out that sometimes, what appear to be scientific arguments about the facts of the matter are driven by different social/political assumptions and agendas - ideology, if you like. For that reason, when we consider these arguments we need to ask not only what are the scientific facts, but what's the agenda?
Global warming skeptics would agree with that - but claim that its ONLY the pro-AGW scientists who are biased by ideology. Skeptics are the only "pure and rational" scientists, with no ideological bias.
This is utter nonsense. The fact is, the anti-GW ideology is obvious. It's all about unrestrained, every-capitalist-for-himself libertarianism -- or as I prefer to call it, "aquisitarianism". Big business can do no wrong. Anyone who points out that freedom carries responsibilities, that we need to show consideration for others and take care of the planet, is perceived as a wicked, oppresive kill-joy -- as the the tirade of insults in this forum shows. That's why this ideology hates environmentists -- or as you tend to prefer to call them, "greeny Nazis", "Greenomaniacs", GW-fascists/marxists/commies and so on.
So it's not surprising that people with this perspective have little interest in the scientific facts -- only the claims of those so-called "scientists" who tell them what they want to hear.
* Free-thinking does not just mean choosing to believe whatever makes you feel good. There's no thought at all in that. *
I read the article and he is stating what is perfectly obvious to any neutral observer:
1. The theory of man-made science is not supported by evidence.
2. In the absence of evidence, models have been constructed that assume the theory is true. Their future scenarios are mis-represented as predictions.
3. the IPCC is not a scientific body, but an intergovenmental political body negotiating a polical settlement that is polically actionable. the IPCC which has turned a scientific theory into political dogma, so that the ploiticians be seen to be doing something about global warming.
Mike Hume has clearly correctly recognised that the evidence is very weak. Given the political momentum that now exists around a simplistic solution ("the answer is Carbon trading") he sees an opportunity to ditch the science altogther and make polical decisions based on "values" (read dogma).
Scientists: smell the roses - you have been had. You have served your purpose - now go away and figure out how to reduce CO2 emissions - don't bother us with this unhelpful search for the truth.
Here's a couple of Mike Hume gems from the article:
"In fact, in order to make progress about how we manage climate change we have to take science off centre stage."
" Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking"
Originally posted by APL: Melanie Phillips blog says it all: What an admission! Let’s read that one again. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking. Of course not. The facts don’t support it. It’s not true. So, says Hulme, let’s abolish the need to establish the facts and the truth and impose the theory on the basis of — what’s that again — ‘values and beliefs’. In other words, climate change science has got to be anti-science. It’s got to be anti-truth. It’s got to be nothing more than an ideology.
I bet you haven't read the Guardian article by Hulme. I don' think it's very well written Melanie Phillips quotes him out of context and then blatantly misinterprets what he says, to the point of outright lying. He CERTAINLY does not say, as she implies, that "the facts don't support global warming". He makes it perfect clear that in fact, they do.
What Hulme actually says is that whether we like it or not, everyone -- especially policy makers -- interpret scientific evidence in the context of preconceived values and assumptions. He points out that sometimes, what appear to be scientific arguments about the facts of the matter are driven by different social/political assumptions and agendas - ideology, if you like. For that reason, when we consider these arguments we need to ask not only what are the scientific facts, but what's the agenda?
Global warming skeptics would agree with that - but claim that its ONLY the pro-AGW scientists who are biased by ideology. Skeptics are the only "pure and rational" scientists, with no ideological bias.
This is utter nonsense. The fact is, the anti-GW ideology is obvious. It's all about unrestrained, every-capitalist-for-himself libertarianism -- or as I prefer to call it, "aquisitarianism". Big business can do no wrong. Anyone who points out that freedom carries responsibilities, that we need to show consideration for others and take care of the planet, is perceived as a wicked, oppresive kill-joy -- as the the tirade of insults in this forum shows. That's why this ideology hates environmentists -- or as you tend to prefer to call them, "greeny Nazis", "Greenomaniacs", GW-fascists/marxists/commies and so on.
So it's not surprising that people with this perspective have little interest in the scientific facts -- only the claims of those so-called "scientists" who tell them what they want to hear.
It is rather naive and disenenuous to suggest that AGW sceptics's sceptics is unbridled development. Some of us just want to make sure that we solve the right problems and not the wrong ones. What you and many others have failed to have recognised is that big business has on the whole, accept carbon trading as the political settlement that allows them to continue to do business as normal. Big business will benefit enormously from Carbon trading. Wake up and smell the coffee - you have been had.
When you say "he" do you mean Mike Hume? I don't agree he has concluded those 3 points, you've made antidogma.
Frankly I'm surprised some of you are so critical of Mike Hume. Some of you have read Melanie Phillips and taken it she knows what she is talking about. But I would suggest she has attacked one of the open critics of the "consensus" there is man-made climate-change.
Or to put it simply she is attacking one of your own anti-AGW people.
Further, the quote "self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking", isn't that effectively the anti-AGW argument?
Many anti-AGW people on this forum argue that the scientists referred to by the IPCC can not be trusted, which is effectively what Mike Hume is saying.
I categorise Mike Hume as similar to Carl Wunsch in speaking out against the "consensus" and wanting the science to be debated.
If you need any further evidence that AGW is politics first and science second:
On BBC Radio Four’s Today programme this morning, the Environment Secretary David Miliband, asked whether there was anything in last week’s Channel Four documentary ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’, gave the following memorable reply :
"I didn’t see the programme — but I promise you I will do a blog demolishing its contents."
Originally posted by Robbie Writer: When you say "he" do you mean Mike Hume? I don't agree he has concluded those 3 points, you've made antidogma.
Frankly I'm surprised some of you are so critical of Mike Hume. Some of you have read Melanie Phillips and taken it she knows what she is talking about. But I would suggest she has attacked one of the open critics of the "consensus" there is man-made climate-change.
Or to put it simply she is attacking one of your own anti-AGW people.
Further, the quote "self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking", isn't that effectively the anti-AGW argument?
Many anti-AGW people on this forum argue that the scientists referred to by the IPCC can not be trusted, which is effectively what Mike Hume is saying.
I categorise Mike Hume as similar to Carl Wunsch in speaking out against the "consensus" and wanting the science to be debated.
I don't think he is a sceptic. I think what he is saying that it is time to move beyond science and deal with things at a political level.
Originally posted by Robbie Writer: Rather than reading Melanie Phillips, an outspoken right-wing journalist, wouldn't it be better to read the original article she was refering to:
And lets discuss what Mike Hulme has to say in his own words rather than second-hand.
Well done Robbie.
Lets also note that APL's first quote was from Melanie Phillips not Mike Hulme. Melanie Phillips is a well known global warming sceptic see wikipedia "Phillips has written sceptically about global warming, calling it a "con-trick"[15], a "witch-hunt"[16] and a "fraud".[17] George Monbiot has accused her of "scientific illiteracy" and says she is aligned with a "denial industry" funded by oil and tobacco companies.[18]"
Lets also note that Mike Hulme (a respected main-stream GW scientist) is commenting on a book by Fred Singer of GGWS fame (he's the one who thinks James Lovelock is our chief scientist). Mike Hulme defines the book by Singer and Avery as post-normal science and accuses them of a lack of reflective transparency, meaning that "they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity."
My understanding of the article is that Hulme, as one would expect as director of the Tyndall Centre, is concerned about AGW and also about the distortion of the climate change science by pro and anti global warming campaigners, a position he has publicised before.
Re APL's second quote, "Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones. - Mike Hulme". The context for this is set by the preceding sentence in the article "All of us alive today have a stake in the future, and so we should all play a role in generating sufficient, inclusive and imposing knowledge about the future." I don't think this quote or the whole article supports the impression that APL was trying to give, vis that Mike Hulme is saying that the science is wrong.
I read the article as a plea for the science to be heard but also for scientists to get involved in the political and philosophical debate which is avoided by "normal" scientists.
Why is it when read bu**sh*t from sources that are apparently credible (like a professor from a Uni) we don't take it at the face value (ie it is bull) but impose special meaning to the words?
I will be happy to discuss the philosophy of science that prof hume talks about with anyone who thinks that it holds some water
Let's have post-normal judges too. They can post-sentence people for what they might do in future and how much it personally offends his idealisation of what the future should be. A post-crime!
Originally posted by TheHeretic: I bet you haven't read the Guardian article by Hulme. I don' think it's very well written Melanie Phillips quotes him out of context and then blatantly misinterprets what he says, to the point of outright lying. He CERTAINLY does not say, as she implies, that "the facts don't support global warming". He makes it perfect clear that in fact, they do.
What Hulme actually says is that whether we like it or not, everyone -- especially policy makers -- interpret scientific evidence in the context of preconceived values and assumptions. He points out that sometimes, what appear to be scientific arguments about the facts of the matter are driven by different social/political assumptions and agendas - ideology, if you like. For that reason, when we consider these arguments we need to ask not only what are the scientific facts, but what's the agenda?
Global warming skeptics would agree with that - but claim that its ONLY the pro-AGW scientists who are biased by ideology. Skeptics are the only "pure and rational" scientists, with no ideological bias.
This is utter nonsense. The fact is, the anti-GW ideology is obvious. It's all about unrestrained, every-capitalist-for-himself libertarianism -- or as I prefer to call it, "aquisitarianism". Big business can do no wrong. Anyone who points out that freedom carries responsibilities, that we need to show consideration for others and take care of the planet, is perceived as a wicked, oppresive kill-joy -- as the the tirade of insults in this forum shows. That's why this ideology hates environmentists -- or as you tend to prefer to call them, "greeny Nazis", "Greenomaniacs", GW-fascists/marxists/commies and so on.
So it's not surprising that people with this perspective have little interest in the scientific facts -- only the claims of those so-called "scientists" who tell them what they want to hear.
I have read the article and frankly your post epitomises why a scientist like Mike Hulme feels he needs to write such an article – on top of his pro-AGW spiel, he is saying scientist have to recognise that they must appease people like you and the politicians if they are going to be ‘listened to’ – he is selling out science for political manipulation – he is saying scientist should be prepared to accept bending the truth in order to get funding – and in terms of your rant he is saying let’s science and scientists succumb to the unrestrained, every-capitalist-for-himself Liberians – haven’t you learnt yet that the worst capitalist are politicians?
Let’s be to the point - the last thing the human race wants is science to be in the complete control of the unscrupulous, underhanded, lying politicians, who in turn are easily manipulated by the highest bidder – but this is exactly what Hulme is advocating.
Originally posted by UKEngineer: Re APL's second quote, "Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones. - Mike Hulme". The context for this is set by the preceding sentence in the article "All of us alive today have a stake in the future, and so we should all play a role in generating sufficient, inclusive and imposing knowledge about the future." I don't think this quote or the whole article supports the impression that APL was trying to give, vis that Mike Hulme is saying that the science is wrong.
I read the article as a plea for the science to be heard but also for scientists to get involved in the political and philosophical debate which is avoided by "normal" scientists.
Comments APL?
I think my previous post reinforces much of what I will say here.
APL (and Melanie Philips) was looking beyond the pro-AGW information spouted by Hulme I was looking at the language used it was not the language of a scientist talking about an area of science that has a large number of uncertainties to it.
Science should never, I repeat never get involved with the political and philisophical debate, this is why pro-AGW are often equated to flat-earthers, we now know the earth is round because of those few scientist that argued against the political and philosophical that the earth was in fact round
I agree Mike has sold out science. What I like is that he is honest about it, recognising the reality of today's situation. Unlike all those sicentists that pretend the IPCC is a scientific organistion. It is not - it's a political forum for negotiating a carbon settlement.
The new reality is the politicians and big businesses have taken control of the globale warming discussion.
The politicians wanted to be seen to be doing something and to calm down axnieties in the population. Things were getting out of hand and the population was getting restless.
Big busines wanted an econmomical solution they can live with. It's called carbon trading. They will end up making money out of carbon because they have the technologies to sell. Watch GE wind-mills.
The scientists have already been sidelined. Mike Hume is honest enough to publicly recognise this and getting on with the job the politicians have given him - how to reduce carbon emissions.
