The ClimateGate e-mails show otherwise. They show the warmist mafia conspiring to spike publication of contrary research.
If you can't get published, you don't get very far in academia.
And then there's the whole "I won't share my data because they'll use it to try to prove me wrong" thing.
The only conspiracy I do see in that write-up consists of sensationalist self-proclaimed experts, scientifically illiterate pundits and talking heads providing an illusion of controversy where none exists so that people like you tune in to their message and generate ad revenues and fat bonus pay-checks.
Honestly which do you believe is more likely - a vast global conspiracy of climatologists are swindling the public, people who have to publish models and/or data to support their claims, with all it taking is one honest scientist to expose them as frauds (withholding data as you point out does happen, but this affects the support their claims receive)... or a bunch of charismatic talking heads with zero science education or interest are hyping things up because they know, as an absolute and incontrovertible fact, that doing so generates revenue, votes, etc. from the conspiracy crowd?
I doubt all scientists are honest, but the proportion of scientists that are honest vs. the proportion of talking heads that are honest makes it pretty obvious where to look for a real conspiracy. It takes one scientist to expose a fraud definitively, but no amount of evidence seems to persuade a talking head to shut up as long as there's enough conspiracy theorists paying their salary and their master's profits.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/24811/24811-h/24811-h.htm#Pag...
Some of the text on Wikipedia is interesting as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland#Norse_settlement
And if you look back to read _The Saga of Eric the Red_ (http://www.americanjourneys.org/aj-056/index.asp), you can see references to "ice mountain" and so on.
They also named Iceland ice land and the Icelandic climate is milder than Greenland's. I'm not sure that's the strongest argument to be made here.
Just to make sure you've given it some thought and aren't just repeating things you've heard off of blogs and Fox News.
Consider, many very fundamental aspects of climate modeling are typically just approximated using an empirically derived "fudge factor". For example, the interaction between the ocean and the atmosphere and the transfer of heat between them, that's not derived from an extensive analysis from first principles, it's typically merely parameterized. The same goes for clouds which have poorly understood effects in climate science (combining both cooling and insulating aspects). And it's even true for the impact of CO2 concentrations as well.
The idea that we have a robust, from first principles understanding of climate science is patently ridiculous. Now, that doesn't discount the possibility that we understand climate well enough to make strong, well founded predictions about it. We should always be extremely careful to understand the limitations and assumptions of our models, because failing to do so is a recipe for being surprised when the real world deviates with your imperfect simulation of it.
You're referring to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment#Millikan.27...
Yes, its fascinating.
Just like a lemon market, except driven by fear?
I remember reading somewhere (Richard Feymann maybe?) about the initial mass or charge of some particle, an electron maybe, being far away from the truth and leading to a suppression of the publication of any "dissident" results - including a much better estimate that followed.
The scientific process took care of that by publishing revised estimates, just slightly lower and lower, until the number reached the initially conflicting estimation, but this took some time.
I do not claim to have any opinion on climate change - except to notice that a side is giving alarmist claims, which can not be disproved, or when they can and are, which are adjusted by an ad-hoc theory. From global freezing in the 70s to global warming, and now "climate change". And that the other side is giving different results and seems to be more cautious in its process, because it is facing an uphill battle like anyone who would have published a significantly lower mass.
That does not win merit points with what I know about epistemology.