# Surprise: Consensus on Climate Change was a Lie **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 16, 2010, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423 "2010-06-16T14:59:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/41 "2010-06-16T18:36:49Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > [Mike Hulme says Lawrence Solomon story was phoney](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/06/mike_hulme_says_lawrence_solom.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink) > > [Mike Hulme sets Solomon and Morano straight](http://deepclimate.org/2010/06/15/mike-hulme-sets-solomon-and-morano-straight/) “Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism. 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. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.” -[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=12583530&dr\_log=-1&linkout=https%3A//docs.google.com/viewer%3Furl%3Dhttp%3A//www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%25255B1%25255D.pdf](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=12583530&dr_log=-1&linkout=https%3A//docs.google.com/viewer%3Furl%3Dhttp%3A//www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%25255B1%25255D.pdf) Sounds like Hulme is reneging his statement. I don’t see how you can interpret the statement any other way. In order to pad their numbers they included names of politicians in there list as well. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/42 "2010-06-16T18:45:25Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > …Big oil doesn’t stand a chance really. From your lips to the Ears. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/43 "2010-06-16T18:47:59Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > Most definitely big oil companies are probably investing in green tech. I think Exxon is doing something with deep sea algae… but that’s not the problem. I’m not just talking about technology, though, i’m talking about all climate change research. If the criteria for assuming who’s backing what with their money is an interest, really, we should be looking at big oil too. In which case, we can’t say whether or not it’s safe to assume independency; certain research might be funded by either side, neither side, or even both, potentially. Speaking about potentials is fair and reasonable, but it’s not reasonable to state an actual conclusion based upon the potential for something. > [@](#): > > I’m not supporting the oil industry either, but I think the mass hysteria surrounding this issue is more emotional than it is scientific. Pollution is bad and oil companies are evil, and if we don’t act quick the world is going to end. That’s the mantra of a typical environmentalist. Aside from “Pollution is bad”, I think i’d disagree with you that those things are the mantra of a typical environmentalist, no more than the mantra of a typical skeptic is “Pollution is good, oil companies are saints and the world is a-ok and absolutely perfect”. Generally, the views of the majority of both groups tend to lack that level of hyperbole. Really, I think the “mass hysteria” itself is the illusion - after all, if a majority of environmentalists (not an insignificant group) honestly believed the world was going to end, we’d be seeing riots, murders, and all that goes along with what would be, in essence, a witch hunt. There are, certainly, hysterical individuals, even groups, but to make a claim of “mass” hysteria is considerably shorter a jump than i’d be prepared to make. > [@](#): > > I’m not saying that there is nothing to fear, and there is no good reason to switch to cleaner fuels because there obviously is. The problem has always been cost and the market has spoken on that issue. Oil wins. Well, so far, anyway. As you say, even oil companies are looking into greener fuels and technologies. Some day, such natural resources will be running out, even if they don’t cause considerable harm in and of themselves. > [@](#): > > The only other alternative to push your political agenda is through fear. > > Honestly, I know I’ve talked a lot about money being a prime culprit (which I believe it is) but I believe another huge motivator is politics and ‘ethics’. I believe people are forcing their agenda onto others by making broad claims about some disaster in the unforeseeable future. But, surely, if we look at this from an outside viewpoint, couldn’t the same be said of you? You too are attempting to make broad claims, based on the “disaster” of scientific collusion or deception. To a neutral observer, it might be considered that you too are attempting to force your agenda on others, by making people fear that scientific research is in essence bought and paid for. Now, i’d say that would be unfair. I don’t consider your words to be the result of a deliberate attempt to pull the wool over eyes, or the undertaking of a cynical method like using fear to promote your position. I’d say you’re simply arguing in good faith - but that doesn’t mean that, to someone else, it could not be seen as unreasonability. I agree with you that, in many cases, there are decisions behind the scenes of “Right, how can we best persuade people we’re right?”, which are taken in unpleasant ways. But I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume it so widely, as you appear to do. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/44 "2010-06-16T19:25:20Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > Most definitely big oil companies are probably investing in green tech. I think Exxon is doing something with deep sea algae… but that’s not the problem. You’re right. That is not the problem. The problem lies elsewhere. First consider what Exxon is spending on algae research. A few million sounds great but it is a drop in the bucket for them. They do it mostly for PR value. Indeed there was some company (sorry no cite…been awhile) who put in something like $3 million into some research (say cancer in children). Great huh? Well, they spent $30 million in a PR campaign touting how cool they were for funding the research. (I am sure I have the particulars wrong but the idea is there.) BP recently [spent $50 million](http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/06/bp-turns-to-political-shop-for-50-million-ad-buy-to-convince-you-the-company-will-get-this-done-and-.html) on a PR campaign. Can you think of a better use for that money? I can. Second, they will keep their hand in “green tech” in case anything does come of it. It costs them relatively little and should something really new and profitable come along they can be positioned to exploit it. That or they can be positioned to sue for various patent infringements (since they might have been working on something similar) to keep the new stuff off the market for years (such things happen a lot). If they are lucky they invent the new thing and sit on it till the oil runs out (whenever that is). Third, you are missing where the money is. Exxon alone made $45 billion in 2009 (profit). BP made $25 billion in 2008 (profit). Now, there _might be_ money in green tech someday. Exxon and so on are making solid fortunes _right now_. They are not hoping for some future profits. They are profiting and they want to protect those profits out of pure self interest. Self interest may be fine but that can clearly run counter to the public welfare (see BP in the Gulf). ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/45 "2010-06-16T20:09:49Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > But there is a problem that I’ve always suspected. Money. The green movement is bringing in a ton of money for their respective corporations. And why not play big oil at its own game and cheat your way to the top. > > I’ve always suspected greed as the motivator for these scientists, and while I’m sure some actually believe that their science is good… having to resort to misleading people about how many other scientists support your claim is very wrong. > > Whenever I mentioned this to someone, they would always tell me that scientists are good and just and want to be proven wrong. They do it all for science! They would gladly give up their millions of dollars in grant money to have their science proven wrong. That’s how science works. That’s how technology advances. > > That is what I’m supposed to believe. That these scientists want to be proven wrong… > > So at this junction usually someone accuses me of being and evil denier that should die. Nope, by this time it is clear that it is the sources that you are relying for information **should die**. > **[Mike Hulme sets Lawrence Solomon and Marc Morano straight](https://deepclimate.org/2010/06/15/mike-hulme-sets-lawrence-solomon-and-marcmorano-straight/)** > > The latest false scandal in climate science hit the blogosphere over the weekend. National Post columnist Lawrence Solomon \[not to be confused with atmospheric chemist and IPCC WG1 chair Susan Solo… > [@](#): > > The latest \*\*false \*\*scandal in climate science hit the blogosphere over the weekend. National Post columnist Lawrence Solomon wrote a column with the outlandish claim: > > > [@](#): > > > > The UN’s IPCC 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. > > Charges of a “phony UN IPCC consensus” are already reverberating on contrarian blogs around the world, thanks to the quick efforts of climate science disinformation specialist Marc Morano. > > But now Mike Hulme, a professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia, has set the record straight. His “correcting and clarifying” statement is unambiguous in its disavowal of Solomon’s and Morano’s misinterpretation: > > > [@](#): > > > > I did not say the ‘IPCC misleads’ anyone – it is claims that are made by other commentators, such as the caricatured claim I offer in the paper, that have the potential to mislead. > [@nilum](#): > > This is how I think all the environmentalists feel. > > It’s unfortunate that people think this way. The end never justifies the mean if it involves corporate greed and mass hysteria. Well, the means that the denier press is using to mislead people like you are reaching scandalous levels, why not demand them to set the record straight or dismiss them forever? ---
**Author:** ![Dread\_Pirate\_Jimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dread_pirate_jimbo/32/3897_2.png) [@Dread\_Pirate\_Jimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dread_Pirate_Jimbo)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/46 "2010-06-16T20:14:36Z")
So wait – Are you saying that concensus does not mean that 100% of scientists agree with each other 100% of the time? That they only agree, like, 97% of the time?!? This whole climate change thing is obviously a sham!!! ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/47 "2010-06-16T20:20:11Z")
> [@Dread\_Pirate\_Jimbo](#): > > So wait – Are you saying that concensus does not mean that 100% of scientists agree with each other 100% of the time? That they only agree, like, 97% of the time?!? This whole climate change thing is obviously a sham!!! I never said that. But I’m glad you’re representing _that_ portion of the environmentalists. ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/48 "2010-06-16T20:23:24Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, by this time it is clear that it is the sources that you are relying for information **should die**. > > [Mike Hulme sets Lawrence Solomon and Marc Morano straight | Deep Climate](http://deepclimate.org/2010/06/15/mike-hulme-sets-solomon-and-morano-straight/) > > Well, the means that the denier press is using to mislead people like you are reaching scandalous levels, why not demand them to set the record straight or dismiss them forever? He can blame the commentators all he wants. The point is he, IPCC scientists and the other IPCC officials stood by while these ‘commentators’ made such claims. Now I call that disingenuous. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/49 "2010-06-16T20:25:23Z")
> [@Dread\_Pirate\_Jimbo](#): > > So wait – Are you saying that concensus does not mean that 100% of scientists agree with each other 100% of the time? That they only agree, like, 97% of the time?!? This whole climate change thing is obviously a sham!!! And I am unanimous in that… ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/50 "2010-06-16T20:27:48Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > He can blame the commentators all he wants. The point is he, IPCC scientists and the other IPCC officials stood by while these ‘commentators’ made such claims. > > Now I call that disingenuous. No, that is why I call disinformation. The fact is that denier media always distorts what was said, and if you are denying now that the ones that were misinterpreted are setting the record straight then… I will leave others to judge then who is being disingenuous. ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/51 "2010-06-16T20:29:56Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > No, that is why I call disinformation. The fact is that denier media always distorts what was said, and if you are denying now that the ones that were misinterpreted are setting the record straight… And these scientists have been using and benefiting from this misinformation. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/52 "2010-06-16T20:49:52Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > And these scientists have been using and benefiting from this misinformation. I think you were misinformed even there by the denier media, consensus was demonstrated by the preponderance of papers that supported and support AGW, it is also demonstrated by the scientific organizations that support the science behind global warming. What it was disputed was the number of scientists, IIRC that number is actually small in the current “misinformation” meme of the denier media. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/53 "2010-06-16T20:53:04Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > Whenever I mentioned this to someone, they would always tell me that scientists are good and just and want to be proven wrong. They do it all for science! They would gladly give up their millions of dollars in grant money to have their science proven wrong. That’s how science works. That’s how technology advances. “Give up their millions of dollars in grant money”? Do you seriously imagine that having a mainstream scientific hypothesis disproved or significantly modified would require scientists to “give up grant money”? This viewpoint shows a stunning naivete on your part about how science research funding actually works. You seem to imagine it as being something like being hired by a company (i.e., a funding agency) to develop a particular product (i.e., theory). And so if you come to the conclusion that that particular product isn’t actually any good and you don’t want to work on it, then they kick you out and don’t give you any more money. This is really not the way the funding process works in general. Scientists get research money for coming up with good explanations of observed data, or thinking of good ways to test existing explanations more rigorously, or collecting additional data that will provide more information about interesting phenomena to test our explanations on. The money isn’t earmarked for any particular explanation in and of itself. In fact, whole scientific disciplines have gone through periods where major mainstream hypotheses have been substantially changed or even largely reversed, while they continued right along with funding for research on the new hypotheses. An example is the classical cosmological theory that black holes have such powerful gravitational attraction that not even radiation can escape from them, now superseded by the theory that black holes do in fact emit Hawking radiation. Nobody had to “give up their grant money” in order to change their minds about this. They argued about it, decided that the new explanation was plausible, and eventually adopted it. Similarly, there would be no major financial sacrifice required for climate researchers to adopt a new hypothesis about the causes of global warming. They’d argue about it at first, and then as they become persuaded it was plausible, they’d just write more grant proposals for research to test features of the new hypothesis rather than the old one. No part of this process requires scientists to be unusually “good” or altruistic in any way. As a group, they’re not sabotaging their own self-interest when they adopt a new scientific theory. > [@nilum](#): > > Here are the arguments against me: > > 1. I’m brainwashed by the oil industry. […] > 2. I am a global warming denier. […] > 3. I’m evil and that I support corporations polluting. […] A more plausible argument is that you’re just not very well informed either about the details of climate science or about the logistics of scientific research in general, even if you do have a “friend who studies astronomy”. ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/54 "2010-06-16T20:58:55Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I think you were misinformed even there by the denier media, consensus was demonstrated by the preponderance of papers that supported and support AGW, it is also demonstrated by the scientific organizations that support the science behind global warming. What it was disputed was the number of scientists, IIRC that number is actually small in the current “misinformation” meme of the denier media. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_authors\_from\_Climate\_Change\_2007:\_The\_Physical\_Science\_Basis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Physical_Science_Basis) This is what I am talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/55 "2010-06-16T20:59:35Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > And these scientists have been using and benefiting from this misinformation. I am sure you have a cite for this. I want to know how much benefit these so called “scientists” have been receiving for misleading the world and lying about global warming? Fuckers. I am sure that it is all collusion between the fucking ivory tower elites and the damn muslims we have controlling our government right now. Fucking Obama, giving money to the liberal media with their damn scare tactics and the scientists they have on payroll. I remember when science meant something in this country and our scientists weren’t controlled by the islamofascist establishment. I don’t know about the weather where you live, but it was the coldest winter in memory here. Fuckers, screw firing them, we should lock them up! Fucking ivory tower elites. :mad: :rolleyes: Sorry folks, I can’t bring myself to do more than this. For the record, my stance is summed up [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=537088). ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/56 "2010-06-16T21:09:17Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_authors\_from\_Climate\_Change\_2007:\_The\_Physical\_Science\_Basis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Physical_Science_Basis) > > This is what I am talking about. 😕 Your link: > [@](#): > > The following is a list of the 620 authors contributing to Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, which was the 996 page contribution of Working Group I to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Their report describes the causes and climate consequences of global warming. > > This list is limited to people acknowledged as authors or editors on the report. The additional several hundred reviewers acknowledged in Annex III of the report are not included on this list. Author affiliations and nationalities are summarized from the list in Annex II of the report. And then it goes on to give, yup, a list of the 620 authors. (In the interests of full disclosure and scientific accuracy, I must acknowledge that I did not actually count all the listed authors to ensure that there were in fact 620 of them.) Er, why exactly is this what you are talking about? ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/57 "2010-06-16T21:10:48Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > I am sure you have a cite for this. I want to know how much benefit these so called “scientists” have been receiving for misleading the world and lying about global warming? Fuckers. I am sure that it is all collusion between the fucking ivory tower elites and the damn muslims we have controlling our government right now. Fucking Obama, giving money to the liberal media with their damn scare tactics and the scientists they have on payroll. I remember when science meant something in this country and our scientists weren’t controlled by the islamofascist establishment. > > I don’t know about the weather where you live, but it was the coldest winter in memory here. Fuckers, screw firing them, we should lock them up! Fucking ivory tower elites. :mad: > > :rolleyes: > > Sorry folks, I can’t bring myself to do more than this. For the record, my stance is summed up [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=537088). Again, I’m glad _these kind_ of environmentalists are being represented. How could the IPCC not benefit from misleading comments by Gore and others when they tell the public that we’re all going to die if we don’t change energy policies? They haven’t been very vocal about these misleading statements their supporters spew. This paper that Hulme wrote shows they are at least aware, but don’t want to say any more than that. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/58 "2010-06-16T21:11:26Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_authors\_from\_Climate\_Change\_2007:\_The\_Physical\_Science\_Basis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Physical_Science_Basis) > > This is what I am talking about. And I’m also referring to that. > **[Mike Hulme sets Lawrence Solomon and Marc Morano straight](https://deepclimate.org/2010/06/15/mike-hulme-sets-lawrence-solomon-and-marcmorano-straight/)** > > The latest false scandal in climate science hit the blogosphere over the weekend. National Post columnist Lawrence Solomon \[not to be confused with atmospheric chemist and IPCC WG1 chair Susan Solo… > [@](#): > > **So clearly, Hulme is not criticizing the IPCC itself or touting “IPCC exaggeration”, but rather “well-meaning but uninformed commentaries” from groups such as Greenpeace that do refer to a “consensus” of 2500 scientists in support of specific IPCC statements, for example on attribution of climate change.** > > **Even more important, though, is Hulme’s recognition that the IPCC’s “consensus” approach can lead to findings that are perceived as overly conservative by many experts in a given field.** As the Progress in Physical Geography paper states: > > > [@](#): > > > > But consensus-making can also lead to criticism for being too conservative, as Hansen (2007) has most visibly argued. Was the IPCC AR4 too conservative in reaching its consensus about future sea-level rise? Many glaciologists and oceanographers think they were (Kerr, 2007; Rahmstorf, 2010), leading to what Hansen attacks as ‘scientific reticence’. Solomon et al. (2008) offer a robust defence, stating that far from reaching a premature consensus, the AR4 report stated that in fact no consensus could be reached on the magnitude of the possible fast ice-sheet melt processes that some fear could lead to 1 or 2 metres of sea-level rise this century. Hence these processes were not included in the quantitative estimates. > > That tendency to conservative caution is an inconvenient aspect of IPCC “consensus-making” that Solomon somehow forgot to mention. > > **Now that it is clear the only thing phony about the whole affair is Solomon’s story itself, the most important remaining question is whether the National Post and Energy Probe will issue much-needed corrections. Based on past form, I wouldn’t hold my breath.** ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/59 "2010-06-16T21:12:29Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > 😕 Your link: > > And then it goes on to give, yup, a list of the 620 authors. (In the interests of full disclosure and scientific accuracy, I must acknowledge that I did not actually count all the listed authors to ensure that there were in fact 620 of them.) > > Er, why exactly is this what you are talking about? How many of them are actual climate scientists. Just go back and read the first post again. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/60 "2010-06-16T21:13:37Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > Again, I’m glad _these kind_ of environmentalists are being represented. > > How could the IPCC not benefit from misleading comments by Gore and others when they tell the public that we’re all going to die if we don’t change energy policies? They haven’t been very vocal about these misleading statements their supporters spew. > > This paper that Hulme wrote shows they are at least aware, but don’t want to say any more than that. Once again, you are basing that on a misrepresentation of what Hulme said, give it up. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423.md?page=4)