-
04/30/2009 - 19:39865
-
03/22/2009 - 16:211,048
-
03/22/2009 - 16:24947
-
03/22/2009 - 16:27911
-
03/19/2009 - 06:591,259
Settled Science?
Posted 11/22/2009 - 19:48 by Jeff Alberts
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
All Content RSS
Jeff,
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.