[ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

Christopher Luebcke cluebcke at yahoo.com
Wed Feb 17 17:33:16 UTC 2010

Let me just add: I am not a climatologist, and therefore even if I had read a wide variety of peer-reviewed papers on the subject, I would not be qualified to determine whether I had made an accurate sampling, much less judge the papers on their merits.

My claim comes in fact from paying attention to those organizations who are responsible for gathering and summarizing professional research and judgement on the subject: Not just IPCC, but NAS, AMS, AGU and AAAS are all organizations, far as I can tell, that are both qualified to comment on the matter, and who have supported the general position that AGW is real.

If you are going to dismiss well-respected scientific bodies that hold positions contrary to your own as necessarily having been "infiltrated by environmental activists", then it is incumbent upon you to provide some evidence that such infiltration by such people has actually taken place.

I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to disagree with their positions, though, without also presuming that the people you disagree with are wicked? That's the larger point of what I was trying to get at.

----- Original Message ----
From: Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Wed, February 17, 2010 8:59:10 AM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The peer-reviewed science (which, as has been clear for some time, is not always a guarantee of accuracy), does not all agree. So that doesn't settle the issue.
> No, but almost all of it supports the positions that the Earth has been warming over the last century, that the warming has primarily been caused by mankind's introduction of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, and that this warming trend will continue, with projected results over the next 100 years ranging, roughly, from pretty bad to catastrophic in terms of human suffering.

### Did you ever read any of this peer-reviewed literature?

Most likely not, since if you did (as I did), you wouldn't have
written the paragraph. In fact, only a minority of peer-reviewed
literature actively endorses the statements you made, and most of this
has been produced by environmental activists who infiltrated CRU,

Give me a reference to a peer-reviewed primary research paper showing
manmade global warming and I'll give you two disagreeing with it.

extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list