<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:'bookman old style', 'new york', times, serif;font-size:10pt"><div>It's extraordinary to me that scientific research that provides support for AGW theory gets so much critical attention, yet accusations of fraud are accepted on this list without comment. </div><div><br></div><div>I find that very disappointing, but clearly I'm in the minority. One suspects that if Gordon made the same accusation about some aspect of AGI research it wouldn't be accepted quite so uncritically.</div><div style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt"><br><div style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj@gmail.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b>
rafal@smigrodzki.org; ExI chat list <extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Tue, March 2, 2010 9:30:47 AM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled<br></font><br>
On 1 March 2010 19:49, Rafal Smigrodzki <<a ymailto="mailto:rafal.smigrodzki@gmail.com" href="mailto:rafal.smigrodzki@gmail.com">rafal.smigrodzki@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> ### I have reassured myself by extensive reading that deliberate<br>> forgery of climate data is well supported through analysis of the<br>> papers, as well as perusal of additional documents produced by FOIA<br>> requests.<br><br>This, OTOH, does not tell us anything about the factual existence of<br>global warming (data may be forged to support a perfectly true<br>hypothesis...).<br><br>In turn, however, this does not tell us anything on whether it is<br>anthropic, but above all what kind of difference the envisaged<br>reductions in carbon emissions would actually make (let us say, for<br>instance, that a runaway process is already in place...), let alone<br>how the related costs would compare with the costs of the warming<br>avoided, and/or with the costs of
possible alternative measures of<br>geo-engineering (or adaptative bio-engineering!). And I see very<br>little discussion of those points.<br><br>All in all, this makes me inclined to think that climatology,<br>especially in the vulgarisations where somebody regularly suggests<br>that we are facing a likely extinction risk, is basically becoming a<br>religious discourse.<br><br>--<br>Stefano Vaj<br>_______________________________________________<br>extropy-chat mailing list<br><a ymailto="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br><span><a target="_blank" href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a></span><br></div></div><div style="position:fixed"></div>
</div></body></html>