Scientists say "trust us"

The Met Office's hastily assembled list of scientists speaking out in favour of the alleged consensus has been something of a damp squib. I mean, lots of people with a vested interest in the continuation of the global warming crisis think that the global warming crisis is real and important?

Big deal.

Here's an interesting thing though - people who didn't sign it:

• Phil Jones
• Keith Briffa
• Bob Watson
• Andrew Watson
• Mike Hulme
• Tim Osborn

Some people might say that it's remarkable that some of the most prominent climatologists in the country failed to sign a statement of confidence in climatology.

Or perhaps they know something that the rest of us merely suspect.

Then again, maybe they were busy on other things.

More scientists speak out against global warming hysteria

Professor Mike Hulme is a climatologist who heads the Tyndall Centre at the University of East Anglia. He seems to have been starting to speak out against climate change hysteria, and he's put a personal statement up on his website outlining his views.

In recent months I have been chastised for some of my pronouncements on climate change. I have spoken out against the use of exaggerated language in the description of climate change risks; I have spoken about the limits and fragility of scientific knowledge; I have suggested that we should focus on nearer-term policy goals to improve human welfare rather than be so pre-occupied with one large longer-term goal of global climate management. As a consequence I have been accused of burying my head ostrich like in the sand; of undermining the power of science; of lacking passion about ‘solving’ the ‘problem’ of climate change.

This treatment, as anyone who has ever questioned the "consensus" knows, is actually rather reasonable compared to what some have had to put up with.

The rest of the statement sets out his views in more detail - the subheadings give a flavour of where he stands:

• Climate change is a relative risk, not an absolute one
• Climate risks are serious, and we should seek to minimise them
• Our world has huge unmet development needs
• Our current energy portfolio is not sustainable
• Massive and deliberate geo-engineering of the planet is a dubious practice

OK, so there's things to disagree with here, but it's a much more reasonable starting position than the standard "We're aaaall doooomed!!!" which most other commentators adopt. It's also amazing to note how similar this position is to that of Bjorn Lomborg who has been regularly smeared because of his views.

Hulme and some other scientists also have a paper published in Natural Hazards Review (subscription only, so no link) advocating adaptation rather than the economic lunacy that governments around the world have opted for. Predictably this is getting little or no coverage from the mainstream media - the only UK outfit to pick up on it so far is the Telegraph.

The world would be better off adapting to the consequences of climate change rather than trying to fight the causes, according to scientists.[...]

Their controversial view, which they accept will lead to them being branded as "the new pariahs of global warming", is that the world would be better off fighting the consequences of climate change - hunger, storm damage and disease - rather than spending billions of pounds trying to stabilise CO2 emissions across the planet.

Is the tide turning, I wonder?

Calm down dear, it's only a bit warmer.

Alarmist messages about global warming are counter-productive.

So says Mike Hulme, the head of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Obviously the Tyndall Centre is exemplary in its level-headed pronouncements. Take these for example (try clasping the hands together to help achieve the right tone of scholarly detachment....)

EVERYONE'S CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS MUST GO TO ZERO.....[!!!!!!]

CAN THE NATURAL WORLD COPE WITH THE DAMAGE ALREADY DONE....[!!!!!]

WILL CLIMATE CHANGE KILL THE AMAZON?

I wonder if their future press releases are going to be any different?

Post-normal science

Belmont Club has picked up on Mick Hulme's bizarre "post-normal" science piece in the Guardian and finds that it's just politics in disguise.