6. Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails

Now that the conspiracy theorists have blown off steam, it's time for a more sober analysis of those e-mails and what they mean. I can't go through all of them, there are far too many, and . So I've taken the two that seem to be getting conspiracy theorists most worked up -- Phil Jones's e-mail about "Mike's Nature trick" and Kevin Trenberth's e-mail about a "travesty." I'm glad to see that skeptic websites that cover the science understand what these e-mails actually mean. As you'll see, very few commentators who jumped on the conspiracy bandwagon even before reading the e-mails managed to get it right.

The Trenberth paper can be found at http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_m...

Category:

Education

Tags:

• climategate
• potholer54
• CRU
• Hadley
• hackers
• hack
• e-mails
• conspiracy
• fraud
• Phil
• Jones

[dialectical44]

Why doesn't potholer54 show one of the hundreds of disinterested dissenting researchers and scientists? There are a lot of people who present their ideas. We don't need to be scientists to say that the earth wasn't created by God.

[potholer54]

@dialectical44 -- "Why doesn't potholer54 show one of the hundreds of disinterested dissenting researchers and scientists?" -- I show several of them in the second video of this series: 'Climate Change - the Objections.'

[dialectical44]

@potholer54

I saw that years ago. On your Climate Change Myth video (with the John Travolta thumbnail) there is an exhaustive list (added by a commenter) of reputable dissenting scientists. Why don't you include them as well? Let's start with Richard Lindzen of MIT and proceed from there. You have no interest in rigrous scientific debate. You are a PR hack for corporate science. You present dissenting theories as some kind of abberation from your so called "real science."

[potholer54]

@dialectical44 - I think you are refering to a list of papers published in the 1960s and 70s that predicted either a warming or a cooling Earth. If you can find any of the latter group who now insist they were right I would be very surprised. However, if you can find one, please let me know.

[potholer54]

@dialectical44 =Let's start with Richard Lindzen of MIT = I have covered Lindzen's Iris theory and cloud theories extensively, starting in 'Climate Change-- the Objections.' I have also explained the hypotheses of Friis-Christensen and Svensmark, and explained why other scientists don't accept these hypotheses. If I have made any mistakes by misrepresenting anyone, please let me know and I will correct the error.

[dialectical44]

@potholer54

There are hundreds of reputable dissenting scientists and researchers who you ignore in your videos. When you do show them you present their theories as some abberation from the Co2 hyothesis. You are nothing but an anonymous PR hack with an AV editor and a pension for having hissy fits who disguises himself as a purveyor of "rational" ""sober" science. Everything you put up on a pedestal regarding disinterested scientific inquiry is violated with the Co2 hypothesis.

[potholer54]

@dialectical44 =There are hundreds of reputable dissenting scientists and researchers who you ignore in your videos.= The only one you named was Lindzen, and I have indeed covered his theories. I don't know who these hundreds of "dissenting" scientists are, but please name ten whom I have not already covered in my videos.

[tileguy12341]

End your own life less co2, more oil for my SUV! I will give you bullet if you rent GUN!

[dwkjo]

@PeteWatts48 My conclusion was that it's simply another term for "big mouth".

[heytherehadfield]

I thought the guy at 0:49 was joking, so I looked him up, and he's not a comedian, but an actual journalist. My god.