[ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled
alfio.puglisi at gmail.com
Wed Feb 17 18:10:00 UTC 2010
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com>
> >> 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
> ### 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,
> Give me a reference to a peer-reviewed primary research paper showing
> manmade global warming and I'll give you two disagreeing with it.
Mmm.... each chapter of the IPCC report has dozens of references. Can you
really find two times that amount?
> and most of this
> has been produced by environmental activists who infiltrated CRU,
> GISS, and NOAA.
And they managed to convince the uK Royal Society, many national academies
of science, and even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
"infiltration" doesn't begin to describe it.
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat