<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>Rafal,</div><div><br></div><div>I am simply not going to engage in an argument with you about what I was or wasn't <i>really</i> trying to say. Your accusation that I intentionally used innuendo to make an unjustifiable claim is one that you cannot prove, and one that I cannot disprove, because intention is not directly observable. Despite this, you've now taken up the project of revealing my hidden intentions, and are essentially accusing me of being dishonest when I inform you that you are incorrect. </div><div><br></div><div>It is striking that, once again, you have been unable to disagree with a position without attacking the character of the person holding it.</div><div><br></div><div>If you're now going to start arguing against what you claim I <i>really</i>
<i>mean</i>, rather than what I <i>actually say</i>, then there's no need for me to continue to participate in the conversation, because you're having it with yourself.</div><div><br></div><div>Enjoy,</div><div>Chris</div><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> Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki@gmail.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> Christopher Luebcke <cluebcke@yahoo.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b> ExI chat list <extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Sat, March 6, 2010 10:07:17 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 Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Christopher Luebcke <<a ymailto="mailto:cluebcke@yahoo.com" href="mailto:cluebcke@yahoo.com">cluebcke@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>> What would you consider a realistic scenario for sea level rise over the<br>> next, say, 50-100 years?<br><br>### 2.8 to 3.5 cm/decade.<br><br>-----------------------<br><br>> Is it perhaps that you believe that there are no "realistic scenarios<br>> related to manmade climate warming" at all, and therefore that which will<br>> never exist will pose no threat?<br><br>### Exactly. To the best of my knowledge, there is no measurable AGW<br>so far, and no reason to assume there will be any in the future.<br><br>----------------------<br><br> Otherwise I really can't understand how you<br>> can discount it.<br>>> Name the climatologists who claim that changes in Arctic sea ice can<br>>> cause<br>>> disruptive rises in sea level<br>> If
I had made that claim, I would be happy to provide evidence. Again,<br>> please read carefully.<br>>> I didn't make the claims you implied I did. I didn't claim that Bangladesh<br>>> had already been losing land, and I didn't claim that global sea ice cover<br>>> had been shrinking. Again, please read carefully.<br><br>### OK, let's quote you again: "I care about events that indicate an<br>increased potential for disruptive (read: suffering-generating)<br>climate change. I'm sure you're aware of the significants<br>climatologists place on the more-rapid-than-expected Arctic melt,".<br>You said that in the context of discussing Bangladeshi climate<br>refugees, thus by innuendo connecting Arctic ice melt to rise in sea<br>level. You were trying to appeal to the authority of unnamed<br>"climatologists" to justify a connection between an observed event and<br>dire warnings of future calamity, so as to strengthen the impact of<br>your
warning. I called you out, asking exactly what would be the<br>mechanism connecting Arctic ice and putative flooding in Bangladesh<br>and which authority claims to know this mechanism - of course, you<br>retreat, since this is how innuendo works. It's meant to somewhat<br>nebulously convey a message (here, prediction of catastrophe if we<br>don't follow your recipes) but worded so as to assure easy deniability<br>when pressed for details.<br><br>Rafal<br></div></div><div style="position:fixed"></div>
</div></div></body></html>