7. Climate Change - "Those" e-mails and science censorship

Are climatologists censoring scientific journals and silencing alternative hypotheses on climate change? This is the second part of my look at the hacked/stolen e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit in the UK. I welcome intelligent opinions in the forum, but please refrain from posting the same inane comment a dozen times. Debates in science aren't settled by those who argue the longest or the loudest, but by the accuracy of facts and the consistency of hypotheses with the facts.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• climategate
• CRU
• hadley
• phil
• jones
• hacked
• e-mails
• global
• warming
• climate
• change
• potholer54

[obtree]

While you were on the subject of grade F papers, I'm surprised you didn't touch on Mann's hockey stick and McIntyre's and McKitrick's refutation.

[potholer54]

@obtree - This was a video about climate change censorship related to the leaked CRU e-mails, as was explained very clearly in the video and in the title. The so-called "hockey stick" will be dealt with in a video about the Medieval Warm Period.

[potholer54]

@181183R20710, I’m going to opt out of long answers to your many questions by directing you to my videos where most of them are already answered:

See “The Scientific Method Made Easy” for an explanation of the word “theory” and why nothing can be proved outside of mathematics.

“todays temperatures and the magnitude of temperature rise is nothing unusual”

See “Climate Change – Isn’t it natural?”

I don’t use the IPCC as a source. All my sources are research papers, clearly listed.

[litwriter100]

Pot, the consensus seems to want more than the naked theory as well. The hockey stick graph, for example, has a startling visual impact in support of their theory (and would convince me if I had compete faith in it). It and others like it are dependent on a fairly accurate reconstitution of historical temps for their credibility; thus, my interest in the reliability of proxies. Many skeptics claim that CO2 follows warming, not visa versa, and that accounts for the bulk of the CO2 buildup.

[potholer54]

@litwriter100 -- There's too much here for me to deal with in 500-word bites. I'll message you something longer.

[litwriter100]

Pot, yes, unfortunately the only way to prove or disprove A/CC is to do nothing and let events play out. That is *quite* a predicament. If I, for one, had more confidence in the reliability of past temperature reconstructions, then in my mind the risk/reward ratio would tilt to your point-of-view. I must study further the issue of temp proxies, and I have an open mind. I appreciated your presentation. It is neither too heady for most people or too “dumbed down” to be meaningless.

[potholer54]

@litwriter100 -- "I must study further the issue of temp proxies,"

Why the fixation with temp proxies? Why do you think they show, or don't show, a link between CO2 and global temperature?

[timothymanzella]

Your video is popular on Samoa

[dialectical44]

@TheHaeresiarch

What I studied in school has nothing to do with the proposed AGW agenda. There are dissenting high caliber scientists that you can scrutinize asbout their studies. How about starting with them. 

[TheHaeresiarch]

@dialectical44

And what subject did you study exactly, if any?

[dialectical44]

@potholer54

that only mathematics can explain the theory is Positivist Idealism

[dialectical44]

@Markymark6281

Conspiracies are a legal construct. If women, labor unions, teachers and minorities can get together to discuss and further their intereests, what makes peoople think the the most wealthy and powerful corporate classes with the support of the media and state, who they finance, would not do the same? AGW is a free market capitalist agenda.The pro AGW "liberals" have it wrong for the right reasons and anti AGW free market" conservatives" have it right for the wrong reasons .

[dialectical44]

"Bad research", "mistakes" and "flaws"

Translation: Any objective findings that go against the main goal of corporate monopoly profit. Referees may disagree, but disinterested, rigorous and honest scientists may not disagree.

Typical postivist channel. All form and semantics with no political substance or context. This is commoditized science. The majority of scientists dedicated to the principles of the scientific method find no evidence for AGW. Co2 is NOT pollution,pollution is NOT Co2