You can read Hulme's arguments here. He's writing for an academic audience and not a popular one, so his point isn't easy to suss out, but here's his conclusion (page 15):
...knowledge that is claimed by its producers to have universal authority is received and interpreted very differently in different political and cultural settings. Revealing the local and situated characteristics of climate change knowledge thus becomes central for understanding both the acceptance and resistance that is shown towards the knowledge claims of the IPCC. It is a task for physical and human geographers to take seriously, and to do together.OK, sure.
Look, I'm just a freelance journalist. I can't attend all of the field's conferences, but what conferences I have been able to attend (paying my own way) in Boston, in Montreal, in Nice (France), and Corvallis (Oregon), and Portland, I have found very, very little in the way of disagreement with the IPCC position. That is, there have been essentially no talks that disagree with the IPCC position on anthropogenic influences on climate -- talks by people from all over the place.
I don't see it in the tables of content of the world's climate science journals either.
So where is all this disagreement that Hulme is alluding to? I only see it in sidebar, manufactured conferences like that of the corporate-sponsored Heartland Institute.
Hopefully I can get an interview with him on QSR, which has been a bit delayed because of a troublesome gallbladder and some computer problems. It's coming.
Hulme is primarily a geographer not a climatologist, I think. And you may be over-emphasising the respect people have for him. But it helps to explain why he thinks a more prominent role for geographers is a good idea.
Post a Comment