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

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke at yahoo.com> wrote:

> What would you consider a realistic scenario for sea level rise over the
> next, say, 50-100 years?

### 2.8 to 3.5 cm/decade.

-----------------------

> Is it perhaps that you believe that there are no "realistic scenarios
> related to manmade climate warming" at all, and therefore that which will
> never exist will pose no threat?

### Exactly. To the best of my knowledge, there is no measurable AGW
so far, and no reason to assume there will be any in the future.

----------------------

 Otherwise I really can't understand how you
> can discount it.
>> Name the climatologists who claim that changes in Arctic sea ice can
>> cause
>> disruptive rises in sea level
> If I had made that claim, I would be happy to provide evidence. Again,
> please read carefully.
>> I didn't make the claims you implied I did. I didn't claim that Bangladesh
>> had already been losing land, and I didn't claim that global sea ice cover
>> had been shrinking. Again, please read carefully.

### OK, let's quote you again: "I care about events that indicate an
increased potential for disruptive (read: suffering-generating)
climate change. I'm sure you're aware of the significants
climatologists place on the more-rapid-than-expected Arctic melt,".
You said that in the context of discussing Bangladeshi climate
refugees, thus by innuendo connecting Arctic ice melt to rise in sea
level. You were trying to appeal to the authority of unnamed
"climatologists" to justify a connection between an observed event and
dire warnings of future calamity, so as to strengthen the impact of
your warning. I called you out, asking exactly what would be the
mechanism connecting Arctic ice and putative flooding in Bangladesh
and which authority claims to know this mechanism - of course, you
retreat, since this is how innuendo works. It's meant to somewhat
nebulously convey a message (here, prediction of catastrophe if we
don't follow your recipes) but worded so as to assure easy deniability
when pressed for details.

Rafal