Monday, 7 December 2009

#Climategate - how can you "contextualize" this?

One of the most frequent criticisms that alarmists have made about the interpretation of the Climategate emails is that we don't have the full context.

But when you read an email like this in full, it's hard to understand what context would make it anything but completely damning:

Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100>100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know fuck-all*).

In other words, when we look at temperature variations, we know a fair bit about what has happened north of the Tropic of Cancer in the last 100 years, but south of that we know nothing and before 100 years ago, we also know nothing north of the Tropic either.

Does that really sound like someone who is certain of the scientific basis for AGW?

*My emphasis.


Mitch said...

Wont somebody pleeeeeeeeeese theeeenk of the children.....and not look at the facts.

microdave said...

Ah, but since all the other climate science units "know with certainty that we know fuck-all" then the science IS settled...

Bristol Dave said...

"Taken out of context" is the most laughable justification ever, but it seems to be used constantly by anybody who's just a bit miffed you've printed something they've said that they'd prefer wasn't printed.

I can't think of one example where this particular whinge hasn't been used in this way.

Joe Public said...

None of the Doomsayers can explain why if AGW is so obvious, why the world renowned climatologist Professor Jones had to fiddle the figures.

Mitch said...

why did the Dubai government and the worlds banks build that big fuck off hotel and all that other shit on man made land at sea level if the science is settled?

80billion, sea level Nrrrrrr!

Vladimir said...

That's a good find. Great to see some internal criticism of Phil Jones and Mike Mann (I wonder if this makes Edward Cook a "denialist"?).

I'd love to know how Keith Briffa replied. Did he urge Cook to "drop the whole idea like a hot potato"?