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

[Alfio Puglisi]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:

> Interesting:
>
> Phil Jones momentous Q&A with BBC reopens the “science is settled” issues
> emperor is, if not naked, scantily clad, vindicating key skeptic arguments
>
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/phil-jones-momentous-qa-with-bbc-reopens-the-science-is-settled-issues/
>
> 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.
>

Reading the article, you discover that most of those points are just made up
by the columnist. Why do you think that they are interesting?

Alfio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100217/d8f1fa84/attachment.html>