…from Climaquiddick. It’s hard to read these and still believe that “the science is settled.”
4 thoughts on “250 Notable Emails”
Comments are closed.
…from Climaquiddick. It’s hard to read these and still believe that “the science is settled.”
Comments are closed.
I particularly liked Mann’s demonstration of his mastery of mathematics in No. 3499:
“Turns it, this has the net effect of decreasing the amplitude of the NH reconstruction by a factor of 0.11/0.14 = 1.29.”
(Before you jump to his defense, calculate the reciprocal yourself…)
I culled through that for just some key quotes from weather deniers about their own field. (Dumping the political maneuvering and skanky ‘delete the records!’ or ‘make stuff up!’ quotes.) Using links made it spam.
Mike Hulme: “I am increasingly unconvinced by the majority of climate impact studies – including some of those I am involved in”
Tim Osborne It is becoming increasingly obvious that solar variations are important
Trenberth: Past experience suggests that the weather signal is dominant at any instant and ENSO related variability far overwhelms any greenhouse signal in any year
Rob Wilson The palaeo-world has become a much more complex place in the last 10 years…any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently have
Richard Somerville: “We don’t understand cloud feedbacks. We don’t understand air-sea interactions. We don’t understand aerosol indirect effects. The list is long”
Ed Cook: “I do find the dismissal of the Medieval Warm Period as a meaningful global event to be grossly premature and probably wrong”
Tom Wigley [on paleo reconstructions] “the differences between them prior to 1850 make me very nervous. If I were on the greenhouse deniers’ side, I would be inclined to focus on the wide range of paleo results and the differences between them as an argument for dismissing them all.”
Michael Mann “we certainly don’t know the GLOBAL mean temperature anomaly very well, and nobody has ever claimed we do”
You can say that again Mann.
It is ok for them to have doubts about the accuracy of their work just not the rest of us.
Maybe, the best thing that will come out of this fiasco is a better public appreciation for how intricate the natural world is, and how difficult it was/is/will be to achieve/maintain/advance our technological society.
But, probably not. When the AGW panic fades, it will leave behind a jaded public all the more invested in astrology, homeopathy, the healing power of crystals, etc., and worse. And, a whole slew of broke and out-of-work newly minted climate scientists.
At least, it will provide a cautionary note for future flights of fancy.