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

Christopher Luebcke cluebcke at yahoo.com
Tue Feb 16 22:25:00 UTC 2010


> 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.

Naturally there are scientists who take a minority view of this, but the number of qualified climatologists taking the minority view is quite small. This does not mean that they are incorrect, but they're likely to be. I feel the same way about this as I do about the Big Bang theory and its modest, dwindling competitor, plasma cosmology.

> Which of the things Jones is saying do you think are inaccurate?

I'm actually not deeply interested in what Phil Jones has to say on the matter, outside (once again) of his scientific work. I just find it sadly ironic, and a dark reflection on the petty, fiercely partisan, politicized nature of what should in fact be a sober, scientific discussion, that a man accused (in the court of political opinion) of fraud should suddenly be taken at his word by those same accusers, when that word apparently agrees with their position.

I'm not, of course, accusing you (Max) of doing so. But the whole affair just saddens me.

> What I thought was a little encouraging was some small sign of uncertainty from one of those representing apparent certainty concerning a matter revolving around unreliable models. Perhaps, one day, more economists and risk managers will also become a little more modest and less dogmatic regarding their clearly non-scientific discipline.

I don't disagree, and from what I've read Phil Jones is somewhat less than the perfect scientist. 

But the whole swirl of activity around this indicates a personalization of the subject of AGW to Phil Jones, or CRU, when in fact there are thousands of scientists, thousands of peer-reviewed papers, and dozens if not hundreds of organizations working on this problem. The AGW-denying crowd's recent focus on Phil Jones reminds me of nothing so much as creationists' pathological obsession with, and hatred of, Charles Darwin (and I find little surprise that the two groups share a large intersection).


----- Original Message ----
From: Max More <max at maxmore.com>
To: Extropy-Chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tue, February 16, 2010 1:11:23 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled


> I'll continue to rely mainly on what peer-reviewed science has to say on the matter, not the IPCC or the BBC.

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.

> I do find it sad that suddenly, after months of having his character shat upon, there's a great rush to take something Phil Jones has said as unquestioningly accurate.

Which of the things Jones is saying do you think are inaccurate?

What I thought was a little encouraging was some small sign of uncertainty from one of those representing apparent certainty concerning a matter revolving around unreliable models. Perhaps, one day, more economists and risk managers will also become a little more modest and less dogmatic regarding their clearly non-scientific discipline.

Max

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list