-
04/30/2009 - 19:393,546
-
03/22/2009 - 16:212,831
-
03/22/2009 - 16:244,747
-
03/22/2009 - 16:274,773
-
03/19/2009 - 06:593,626
Settled Science?
Here is an example of the "settled science" of AGW. In one of the emails from the CRU "hack", Dendrochronologist Edward Cook states the following:
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 year
extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we
believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know fu**-all about what
the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know
with certainty that we know fu**-all).
I guess "fu**-all" is a sciency term for "the science is settled".
If someone feels I've taken this out of context, please enlighten me
- Jeff Alberts's blog
- 5623 reads
All Content RSS
Comments
4 comments postedJeff,
In your opinion, do you think any of this data is retrievable?
As a scientist who knows Ed Cook I think he means it the opposite way--that we know nothing about long-term variability. But it is poorly worded to be certain of his meaning.
Not sure I understand your question, Keith. There is data in the zip file, though I haven't looked at it. So retrieving it isn't an issue. Whether it's relevant to anything on the table is another question that remains to be answered.
To my knowledge, saying "fu**-all" in this way means the same thing, that one knows very little about the subject. It's a colloquial term.
Post new comment