[ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn't settled

Christopher Luebcke cluebcke at yahoo.com
Tue Feb 16 20:52:35 UTC 2010

I'll continue to rely mainly on what peer-reviewed science has to say on the matter, not the IPCC or the BBC. 

I do find it sad that suddenly, after months of having his character shat upon, there's a great rush to take something Phil Jones has said as unquestioningly accurate.

----- Original Message ----
From: Max More <max at maxmore.com>
To: Extropy-Chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tue, February 16, 2010 9:50:20 AM
Subject: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn't settled


Phil Jones momentous Q&A with BBC reopens the “science is settled” issues
emperor is, if not naked, scantily clad, vindicating key skeptic arguments

Columnist Indur Goklany summarizes:

Specifically, the Q-and-As confirm what many skeptics have long suspected:
Neither the rate nor magnitude of recent warming is exceptional.
There was no significant warming from 1998-2009. According to the IPCC we should have seen a global temperature increase of at least 0.2°C per decade.
The IPCC models may have overestimated the climate sensitivity for greenhouse gases, underestimated natural variability, or both.
This also suggests that there is a systematic upward bias in the impacts estimates based on these models just from this factor alone.
The logic behind attribution of current warming to well-mixed man-made greenhouse gases is faulty.
The science is not settled, however unsettling that might be.
There is a tendency in the IPCC reports to leave out inconvenient findings, especially in the part(s) most likely to be read by policy makers.

Compare the above to the "orthodox" view:

Max More, Ph.D.
Strategic Philosopher
The Proactionary Project
Extropy Institute Founder
max at maxmore.com
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list