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

Alfio Puglisi alfio.puglisi at gmail.com
Wed Feb 17 02:36:27 UTC 2010

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?

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

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list