‘My 40-year journey with climate change…from idealism to realism’: Former UN IPCC scientist Mike Hulme: ‘I uncritically absorbed the notion that climate change represented the pre-eminent challenge facing humanity’ – Now declares climate is ‘perhaps not the most important thing’

Mike Hulme, Professor at Cambridge University & one of the world’s most accomplished climate scientists. Hulme participated in the UN IPCC second and third assessments & was part of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, where he subsequently founded the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at UEA. He has been at Cambridge University since 2017. ... Mike’s publication record is expansive. 

Prof. Hulme: "For a long period I uncritically absorbed the notion that climate change represented the pre-eminent challenge facing humanity in the twenty-first century. ... I was easily convinced that the growing human influence on the world’s climate would be a reality that all nations would increasingly need to confront, a reality to which their interests would necessarily be subservient and that would be decisive for shaping their development pathways. For more than half of these 40 or so years, it seemed to me self-evident that relations between nations would forcibly be re-shaped by the exigencies of a changing climate.

But now, in the mid-2020s, I can see that I got this the wrong way round. ... Too often the language, rhetoric, and campaigning around climate change remains wedded to a world that no longer exists. ... Rather than geopolitics having to bend to the realities of a changing climate, the opposite has happened. ... In short, this optimism was fueled by the rise of globalism; thinking strategically about climate change was caught-up in this zeitgeist. ... Climate is not the only thing that is changing through our lifetimes, and perhaps not the most important thing. ...

By 2007, the illusion under which I had been working—that geopolitics would bend to the force of concern over climate change—was already ending. The Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997, ratified in 2004, had yielded next to nothing in terms of emissions reductions. ... And the denouement came in December 2009 at COP15, billed as ‘the most important meeting in human history’. During a few days in a wintery Copenhagen, China’s growing political and economic muscle was firmly exercised, the impotence of the EU’s climate diplomacy revealed, and the limits of late twentieth century internationalism exposed. 

The curtain finally came down on Sarewitz’s so-called “plan” during the (northern) 2009/10 winter of climate discontent. In November 2009, the western world was blind-sided by the Climategate controversy over leaked emails between corresponding scientists, and in the early months of 2010 its confidence in climate science further undermined by several challenges to the IPCC’s trust and credibility. ...

So this has been my 40-year journey with climate change, initially from idealist to pragmatist, and now from pragmatist to realist. It is not a particularly hopeful story-arc, but then why should I, or anyone else, ever think that climate change was going to offer one?...Climate is not the only thing that is changing through our lifetimes, and perhaps not the most important thing. ... I now see the need for a deeper reading of political realism and power, that goes beyond seeing science as a coercive force that trumps geopolitics, beyond appeals to a superficial cosmopolitanism. To use the language of Jason Maloy at Louisiana University, climate change is neither an emergency or a crisis; it is a political epic, “a process of collective human effort that features gradual progression through time, obscure problem origins, and anticlimactic outcomes.” 

The best that we can say is that the world will continue slowly to decarbonize its energy system and, at the same time, the Earth will continue slowly to warm. And societies will continue to adapt to evolving climate hazards in new ways, as they have always done, with winners and losers along the way.
Mike Hulme, Professor of Human geography at Cambridge University. Mike is one of the world’s most accomplished climate scientists. Hulme participated in the IPCC second and third assessments, was part of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, where he subsequently founded the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at UEA. He has been at Cambridge University since 2017. … Mike’s publication record is expansive and involves many collaborators around the world. He maintains an active website where you can find his research and commentary

Mike Hulme in 2023. Source: Volkskrant.

From Idealism to Realism: Mike Hulme, a top climate scientist, shares his journey – Via Roger Pielke Jr.’s substack

Excerpts:

Starting in the early 1980s, I have spent my entire professional life studying climate change, as well as teaching, writing and speaking about it in universities, conferences, and public forums around the world—in 43 countries at the latest count. With such a professional and personal investment in the idea of climate change, it is not surprising that for a long period I uncritically absorbed the notion that climate change represented the pre-eminent challenge facing humanity in the twenty-first century.

Since first immersing myself in the topic in the 1980s, and subsequently being part of the scientific and public story of climate change in the 1990s and 2000s[4], I was easily convinced that the growing human influence on the world’s climate would be a reality that all nations would increasingly need to confront, a reality to which their interests would necessarily be subservient and that would be decisive for shaping their development pathways. For more than half of these 40 or so years, it seemed to me self-evident that relations between nations would forcibly be re-shaped by the exigencies of a changing climate.

But now, in the mid-2020s, I can see that I got this the wrong way round. And I can also see why this was so. Rather than geopolitics having to bend to the realities of a changing climate, the opposite has happened. The unyielding force of political realism—the pursuit of the changing and unpredictable interests of nations and great powers—means that the framing, significance, and responses to climate change need continually to adapt to shifting geopolitical realities. Except that too often they haven’t. Whilst the world’s climate has undoubtedly changed over these 40 years, the geopolitics, demography, and culture of the world has changed even more.[5] Too often the language, rhetoric, and campaigning around climate change remains wedded to a world that no longer exists.

So how did the framing and campaigning around climate change respond in the early-mid-2010s to these compounding geopolitical trends? By doubling down on what had worked before. In other words, it responded by offering new science, more science, more scary science. Science was used to reframe what climate change seemed to demand of the world. Carbon budgets replaced emissions scenarios and the idea of ‘net-zero’ emissions was born[12]; theoretical world decarbonisation pathways to achieve net-zero were modelled to keep alive the illusion that a rapid global energy transition was possible[13]; weather attribution science was created as a new tool to drive home the imminence of climate change to a sceptical public; and the language of ‘loss and damage’ emerged to appease the concerns of the developing world. And, finally, in 2015, under the rhetorical weight of this new science, the old policy target of limiting warming to 2°C was reinvented in Paris as “1.5°C”, without a flicker of realization of the impossibility of what was implied by such a number.

It was believed—hoped?—that the world could, and the world would, bend to this demand. If climate change was ‘the greatest challenge facing humanity in the twenty-first century’ then it needed to live up to this billing. Deadlines were set—“we have 12 years to limit climate catastrophe”[14]; language was re-set—from climate change to climate crisis[15], from global warming to global weirding; doomist narratives foregrounded[16], emergencies declared, extinction envisaged, and street protests unleashed. Each new realization of just how far away the world was from placing “stopping climate change” at the centre of today’s politics provoked a reaction: science was enrolled—through the IPCC’s 1.5°C Report in 2018; the rhetoric of tipping points was ramped-up; the young (through Greta Thunberg) and then the old (through female Swiss pensioners[17]) were used as cat’s paws to deliver chimerical feel-good victories; environmental lawyers co-opted Indigenous peoples to use the west’s legal system to try to deliver what the world’s nations stubbornly refused to deliver.
And all along, Putin laughed, China’s soft power—and not-so-soft power—grew, India dissented, the Emerging and Middle Income Countries arrived, African nations kept adding people to the planet. And the worldwide demand for energy continued to rise.

In Europe, too, the climate project began to sour. Between 2016 and 2020 the UK ‘brexited’ the EU collective, Russian gas flooded the continent before the Ukraine war in 2022 revealed the EU’s vulnerability to imperialist aggression, everywhere nativism seemed to flex new political muscles, and climate scepticism found new expressions: among farmers, motorists, and France’s gilet jaunes.

There was a brief flicker of hope in 2020/21 when the COVID-19 pandemic erupted. …
A fringe group of scientists—Scientists’ Rebellion—joined ever more extreme public protests, Just Stop Oil adopted ever more bizarre tactics, the UN Secretary-General offered ever more heated rhetoric about the world a-boiling[20], and the liberal media headed by The Guardian and New York Times amplified climate alarmism, eco-anxiety, chest-beating, and flight, meat and birth shaming.


Neither is climate change the result of capitalism.


So this has been my 40-year journey with climate change, initially from idealist to pragmatist, and now from pragmatist to realist. It is not a particularly hopeful story-arc, but then why should I, or anyone else, ever think that climate change was going to offer one? There is no hidden hand—least of all the benign hand of science—guiding the world to a safe climate-landing. There is no happy ending; we stumble from one thing to the next.

Now, 30 years later, it is the geopolitical truth that power and interests win out. Climate is not the only thing that is changing through our lifetimes, and perhaps not the most important thing. …
I now see the need for a deeper reading of political realism and power, that goes beyond seeing science as a coercive force that trumps geopolitics, beyond appeals to a superficial cosmopolitanism. To use the language of Jason Maloy at Louisiana University, climate change is neither an emergency or a crisis; it is a political epic, “a process of collective human effort that features gradual progression through time, obscure problem origins, and anticlimactic outcomes.”

The best that we can say is that the world will continue slowly to decarbonize its energy system and, at the same time, the Earth will continue slowly to warm. And societies will continue to adapt to evolving climate hazards in new ways, as they have always done, with winners and losers along the way.

© Mike Hulme, January 2025

#

#

Related: 

Cambridge U. Climate Scientist Dr. Mike Hulme Denounces ‘Climate Emergency’ As ‘Noble Lie’

Mike’s publication record is expansive and involves many collaborators around the world. He maintains an active website where you can find his research and commentary

Professor MIKE HULME: Stop blaming everything on climate change! Eco-campaigners link global warming to everything from divorce to the war in Ukraine – but this myopic view could be catastrophic –

UK Times Update: UN Climate Scientist Dr. Mike Hulme: Scientists who vilified a colleague for advising a think-tank are ‘blind to their own biases’- 

New article in Nature says IPCC refused examination of how it distinguishes science from ‘value judgments’ – Co-authored by Mike Hulme-

Mike Hulme: ‘The populist notion that all climate skeptics are either in the pay of oil barons or are right-wing ideologues…cannot be sustained’ –

Warmist Mike Hulme: “The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed…it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it”-

Stagecraft: 1997, the week before Kyoto: Phil Jones and Mike Hulme become ‘TV Stars!!’ with ‘nicely timed’ announcement that ‘1997 is on course to be the warmest year on record’ –

Wow: In email 3423 (year 2001), UEA warmist Mike Hulme said that the evidence was NOT sufficiently strong to start reducing emissions –

Warmist Barrie Pittock chastises warmist Mike Hulme for not being alarmist enough in providing material for a WWF leaflet –

UEA warmist Mike Hulme: ‘I am increasingly unconvinced by the majority of climate impact studies – including some of those I am involved in’ –

‘IPCC insider Mike Hulme explains embarrassing disclosure that went viralto minimize further embarrassment for himself — he can stop digging himself deeper into the hole in which he finds himself’ –

Will Media Now Apologize for being complicit in the ‘Consensus Con’? UN IPCC ‘consensus’ on climate was phony, says IPCC Lead Author Mike Hulme! –

Share: