IPCC Insider Admits Climate Consensus Claim Was a Lie



As reported by Lawrence Solomon in the Financial Post, prominent climate scientist/alarmist Mike Hulme has now admitted that:

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. 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.

The referenced paper by Hulme and Mahony is “Climate Change: what do we know about the IPCC?” Hulme, also author of the recent book, Why We Disagree About Climate Change, is a key proponent of what is called “post-normal science” (see here and here), a postmodern narrative that consists of a complete perversion of standard scientific practice that he supports in order to propagandize for his socialist agenda. As he explained in portions of his book and his article, “The appliance of science,” in the Guardian (March 17, 2007):

“Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs...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...on the process of science—who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy...The IPCC is a classic example of a post-normal scientific activity.”

“Within a capitalist world order, climate change is actually a convenient phenomenon to come along.”

“The largest academic conference that has yet been devoted to the subject of climate change finished yesterday [March 12, 2009] in Copenhagen...I attended the Conference, chaired a session...[The] statement drafted by the conference’s Scientific Writing Team...contained...a set of messages drafted largely before the conference started by the organizing committee...interpreting it for a political audience...And the conference chair herself, Professor Katherine Richardson, has described the messages as politically-motivated. All well and good.”

“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...exchanges often reduce to ones about scientific truth rather than about values, perspectives and political preferences.”

“...’self-evidently’ dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking...scientists—and politicians—must trade truth for influence. What matters about climate change is not whether we can predict the future with some desired level of certainty and accuracy.”

“Climate change is telling the story of an idea and how that idea is changing the way in which our societies think, feel, interpret and act. And therefore climate change is extending itself well beyond simply the description of change in physical properties in our world...”

“The function of climate change I suggest, is not as a lower-case environmental phenomenon to be solved...It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change—the matrix of ecological functions, power relationships, cultural discourses and materials flows that climate change reveals—to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come.”

“There is something about this idea that makes it very powerful for lots of different interest groups to latch on to, whether for political reasons, for commercial interests, social interests in the case of NGOs, and a whole lot of new social movements looking for counter culture trends.”

“Climate change has moved from being a predominantly physical phenomenon to being a social one...It is circulating anxiously in the worlds of domestic politics and international diplomacy, and with mobilising force in business, law, academia, development, welfare, religion, ethics, art and celebrity.”

“Climate change also teaches us to rethink what we really want for ourselves...mythical ways of thinking about climate change reflect back to us truths about the human condition...”

“The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identifies and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us...Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.”

“...climate change has become an idea that now travels well beyond its origins in the natural sciences...climate change takes on new meanings and serves new purposes...climate change has become ‘the mother of all issues’, the key narrative within which all environmental politics—from global to local—is now framed...Rather than asking ‘how do we solve climate change?’ we need to turn the question around and ask: ‘how does the idea of climate change alter the way we arrive at and achieve our personal aspirations...?’”

“We need to reveal the creative psychological, spiritual and ethical work that climate change can do and is doing for us...we open up a way of resituating culture and the human spirit...As a resource of the imagination, the idea of climate change can be deployed around our geographical, social and virtual worlds in creative ways...it can inspire new artistic creations in visual, written and dramatised media. The idea of climate change can provoke new ethical and theological thinking about our relationship with the future....We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilise these stories in support of our projects. Whereas a modernist reading of climate may once have regarded it as merely a physical condition for human action, we must now come to terms with climate change operating simultaneously as an overlying, but more fluid, imaginative condition of human existence.”

Such a deception could only have gone on as long and far as it has because of the cultural cover provided by contemporary Western elites who have embraced environmentalism as the new secular religion. This development and its implications are examined in detail in the Independent Institute’s award-winning, new book:

The New Holy Wars: Economic Religion vs. Environmental Religion in Contemporary America, by Robert H. Nelson

Comments
We invite your civil and thoughtful comments. The use of profanity or derogatory language may result in a ban on your ability to comment again in the future.