Global Warming vs. Climate Change vs. Scientific Exploration?

[Snowman]

1. Global Warming - The hypothesis that man is warming the earth
2. Climate Change - Natural cycles of the planet - both heating and cooling involved
3. Scientific Exploration - A scientific method to test hypotheses through observation, experimentation and provide reproducible results that explain our surrounding world.

What do you say about the e-mails between the two primary proponents of the hockey-stick graph (the creators to be more specific) and how has their correspondence involving suppressing data, manipulating data, silencing critics, marketing their "science", etc. etc. affected your view on the scientific aspect of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Before answering:
1. Any climate change you're about to attribute to AGW can be attributed to natural climate change, so don't give me ice-shelf information, polar bear populations, sea temp. information, etc. etc.. Correlation doesn't imply causation as they're strongly correlated to "Natural Climate Change" as well.
2. Gravity, Religion, Evolution, etc. etc. have no place in the discussion concerning the actual science claimed to support AGW, so they hold no place in your answer here. Resorting to such irrational justification will yield a thumbs-down and you run the risk of being classified as a dunce. You don't have to be a scientist to distinguish what classifies as good science.
3. The hockey-stick graph is the holy grail supporting AGW. If any of the e-mails are true, and they appear to be as both Mann and Jones are on damage control, do you reevaluate the theory based solely on the science?
4. AGW doesn't hold a monopoly on environmental consciousness. You don't have to believe in junk science to appreciate the real issues we face, like pollution, use of resources, etc. etc.. So please keep your answers focused on the question at hand. I care about the environment as much as the next guy -- what I don't care for us being sold on junk science.
5. Do you think they should release the raw data?
6. If there was an impending doom that we're all to be eradicated if AGW is true, why do you settle for a few scientists working on the matter? Wouldn't you expect the entire scientific community to come together and solve this problem? After all, the doomsday scenario requires we all die, eh?
7. How much of the AGW theory is political? How much of it is economic? And finally, how much of it is real science given rise to these e-mails?

Thanks.
ideo: Thanks for the link, but the very IPCC report you cite uses the hockey-stick graph in question. Please stay on topic.
Gopher: "what don't you understand about CH4 and CO2 in the atmosphere" I understand they're naturally occurring in the environment. I also understand they've increased in ppm over the last 100 years. What does that have to do with AGW? Surely you don't think tossing static factoids around is sufficient to qualify as scientific evidence that proves AGW, do you?
Alfred: "So there is plenty of reason to consider trying to reduce the concentrations of man-made CO2." You're assuming AGW is responsible for those increases in temperature. Natural Climate Change would cause those same effects. Speculation isn't science.
ideo - the hockey-graph shows the correlation b/n CO2/Temp., nothing else. I appreciate the raw data link -- I've been there. Much of it is summarized already and finding any usable data requires you navigate a labyrinth. What I'm more interested in is the data the AGW foiks used. That's how the scientific method works. You run experiments, you come to conclusions and when you report your claims, the experiments should be written out in detail and the data used should be supplied. Science requires that the experiments can be reproduced in any independent lab in the world. The problem w/ the AGW claim is that it's speculative -- so the data and models are fragile, which brings us back to political and economic motivations trumping scientific ones. Thanks for the other links too - I'll check them out. I'm not disputing AGW has merits or that Climate change is real, I'm speaking directly to the marketing that far exceeds what the science supports.
Alfred: Like I mentioned to ideo, the graph shows a strong correlation, it doesn't prove AGW. It makes A case, but what it certainly doesn't do is confirm in a scientific capacity that AGW is real.

[Alfred E. Bush]

There is another hockey stick graph that is not in dispute. It shows the massive and unprecedented increase in atmospheric CO2 in the last 50 years vs much lower levels measured over tens of thousands of years in air bubbles captured in ice core samples. It is also not in dispute that atmospheric CO2 captures heat in the "greenhouse effect." What is not fully understood is how the greenhouse effect and other factors work together to impact global climate. In other words, the man-made contribution of massive increases in CO2 is warming the climate, but we don't know precisely how much. We do know from measurements that Arctic ice is melting, sea levels are rising, and 8 of the warmest years in the last 130 years were in this decade. So there is plenty of reason to consider trying to reduce the concentrations of man-made CO2.

[Gopher]

what don't you understand about CH4 and CO2 in the atmosphere???

[Erik]

Finally someone on climate change with some common sense. I applaud you.

As for how the release of the emails affected my opinion... it didn't really. I was skeptic since Al Gore started talking about it back in '99. If anything, the emails of falsified information merely supported what I already thought anyway. Do I denounce the issues of pollution, lack of natural resources? No, I am concerned, especially of the latter. They should release the real numbers though they never will. Too many people and companies (GE) are involved and too interconnected with media sources for the impact of the emails to sweep the green movement under it's feet. I feel the theory is 50 political, 50 economic. The scientists involved were under economic pressures from the companies who refused to fund more research if the results were not in their favor. Politician's made too many promised based on the falsified information and god forbid they admit they were wrong.