links on the youtube page

*lies

no matter what side you're on there's lies in here.

Invocations (lies) cannot be called by Fade because Fade is not privileged - sorry.

About time this B*S* fraud comes out into the open.. Then again the LEFT will keep their buried heads in the sand deny this .

Dr. Tim Ball?!? His name is Dr. Ball?

1) Corbett is a truther.
2) Ball is a strong opponent of AGW theory.
3) Their list of "objective" sources are all websites of AGW opponents.
These facts alone make this highly suspect.

I find the whole thing ridiculous. If I cherry picked through the last ten years of your business e-mails I could find a subset with make you look like a scoundrel.

If these e-mails are so damning, then it should be trivial to show, with science, based on the information the e-mails contain, what is wrong with the papers that the CRU has published. But nobody appears to be able to do this.

So far all I have heard is that they "colluded" to withdraw support from journals publishing things they think are shite, and that they kept some information confidential. These are not suspicious behaviors, these are standard practice, and they should be. Scientists need to police journals by not publishing in those with poor practices. Scientists need to protect their data, and the data of others, so that they don't get scooped on publication.

Much broad climate data is public information, reported in many ways, backed up on paper and harddrives all over the world. If CRU is just fudging the "master data" it should be trivial to show that their dataset does not match the dataset as originally measured. Not claiming or talking about evidence for this suggests strongly that they have no such evidence, and wish to influence science, not through scientific evidence, but through public opinion, and just like creationists, that tactic alone makes their position suspect.

Here DGahndi you can read them for yourself.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails%2C_data%2C_models%2C_1996-2009

This archive presents over 120Mb of emails, documents, computer code and models from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, written between 1996 and 2009.

The CRU has told the BBC that the files were obtained by a computer hacker 3-4 days ago.

This archive includes unreleased global temperature analysis computer source code that has been the subject of Freedom of Information Act requests.
The archive appears to be a collection of information put together by the CRU prior to a FoI redaction process.

Moving this video to bluecliff's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued - promote requested by NordlichReiter.

>> ^NordlichReiter: This archive presents over 120Mb of emails, documents

Yes, lots of document, which should make it easy to find a SCIENTIFIC basis on which to object to the CRUs papers, if these documents show how/what was "fudged". I'm not a opponent of AGW, I know many people are, and will happily wade through the files. I will listen to them as soon as they present some SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE in there which contradicts the published findings of the CRU, until then, it amounts to little more than ad-hominem.

I think its simple. If you want to hid your activities when it comes to things important as this then you are suspect.

That is terribly naive, people who make their living studying and publishing information are not allowed to give out information willy-nilly. Perhaps this should not be the case, but every company, university, and research institution does this, to act like it's strange or inherently suspect is dishonest.

But the thing about science is that you are supposed to give out information willy-nilly. A central ideal of the scientific method and scientific experimentation is repeatability. You make a hypothesis, design a controlled experiment to test that hypothesis, and publish in an extremely open way the steps and procedure of those experiments so that other people can repeat what you've done, perform the same tests and verify your results for themselves.

So much of global warming science comes from computer climate models. The problem with modeling something as complex as climate with computers is that it is nearly impossible to understand the whole system well enough that you can isolate one experimental variable to vary and compare to a control group. As time goes on, we keep learning about more and more variable inputs to the whole system of climate. Carbon Dioxide, Methane, and other gases create a greenhouse effect. The sun has a periodic sunspot cycle and other random (as near as we can figure) fluctuations.

Climate Science is a good thing, because we will gradually learn to understand more and more of those contributing variables. But before anything radical is done in reaction to computer models, those models have to be proven viable. One way that can be done is to feed old, recorded data into the model and see if it can accurately "predict" the past.

For that to be done, the system that the computer models use must be fully disclosed, open, and accepted.

Johannes Kepler came up with some scientific, mathematical equations to describe the physics of how bodies in space interact with gravitational pull. By applying those equations, we've sent men into space and to the moon, maintained orbits of satellites, and done all sorts of fantastically useful things. Until climate science can take data from 2 decades ago and accurately describe what happened 1 decade ago, I think it makes sense to be at least a little skeptical in our reactions to what those models say will happen 10-100 years from now.

>> ^MilkmanDan:
But the thing about science is that you are supposed to give out information willy-nilly.

While I agree with that in theory, I challenge you to name one scientific institution which makes all its employees e-mails, code and raw data sets public.

The fact of the matter is that we live in an IP crazed world, and universities and research institutions hold on to intellectual property because their presidents/boards of directors/funders require them to.

Every idea is guarded, and yes, this does significant harm to the scientific process, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the CRU is committing scientific fraud.

THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS HERE IS IF CRU IS COMMITTING FRAUD, no amount of ad-hominem will make their findings fraudulent, only pre-existing suppressed scientific evidence can do that.

These folks need to stop their media blitz and go find the data that they are so sure exists, anything else is psudo-scientific nonsense, and is undeserving of attention.

The pattern is clear. These guys have been deleting emails, hiding data, and otherwise cooking the numbers because actual REALITY was disagreeing with their faulty conclusions. In order to keep the charade going they were pulling the equivalent of mafia-goon tactics on journals and other scientists in order to freeze them out of the debate. If their conclusions were so rock solid, then why do they need to pull such stunts? Why delete the files? Why is all thier data suddenly 'oops!' vanished? Why hide their activities? Why bury their methodologies? If it is as 'conclusive' as they claim, why not publish everything for real-world scrutiny?

Well - we all know the answers. $$$$ This is all about grants and cash. These guys hitched thier wagon to a political star and they got caught red-handed. Just proves what I've always known. They're a bunch of faux-scientists who are after political payola and don't mind sacrificing everyone on the planet in the process. Now we know they have a history of this. Again - no surprise to me - but nice to finally be able to prove it to all the AWG zombies.

*fail

A couple of emails does not undo many decades of research and peer review. This is just another attempt to persuade gullible morons.

Adding video to channels (Fail) - requested by dystopianfuturetoday.

Moving this video to bluecliff's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

>> ^dgandhi:
...While I agree with that in theory, I challenge you to name one scientific institution which makes all its employees e-mails, code and raw data sets public.
The fact of the matter is that we live in an IP crazed world, and universities and research institutions hold on to intellectual property because their presidents/boards of directors/funders require them to.
Every idea is guarded, and yes, this does significant harm to the scientific process, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the CRU is committing scientific fraud.
THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS HERE IS IF CRU IS COMMITTING FRAUD, no amount of ad-hominem will make their findings fraudulent, only pre-existing suppressed scientific evidence can do that.
These folks need to stop their media blitz and go find the data that they are so sure exists, anything else is psudo-scientific nonsense, and is undeserving of attention.


I don't disagree, and I actually think that it is fine for them to keep data, methods, etc. private while they are being studied. But at the point that they want anyone to take action on them, it has to be opened up. I just mean that the burden of proof needs to be on the AGW supporting people, and if they want us to take action to prevent "catastrophic climate change" at some point in the future, they had better be able to show beyond any reasonable doubt that:
A) Our current use of fossil fuels and other energy sources that emit CO2 and other gases contribute to a greenhouse effect AND
B) The effects of CO2 output and any increased greenhouse gases will have serious, major implications in the climate, and those implications are fully understood and provable.

For item B there to be proven, the prediction models have to be complete and reliable. People using Keplerian formulas can tell you where the moon or other satellites will be in the sky 10 days, 1 year, or 100 years from today with almost perfect accuracy. Weathermen are frequently wrong about what the temperature will be tomorrow. I know that isn't a completely fair analogy, but the I think that the Global Warming models need to stand up to this level of scrutiny and a lot more, particularly if they want us to take major actions based on them.

DGhandi, I suppose open source Application writers are Naive too. But it's a wonder that their applications, and Encryption are made better by letting the Open Source community rip it to shreds.

I am a proponent of Full disclosure. when it comes to things that involve a large amount of people. Namely the whole fucking planet.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
DGhandi, I suppose open source Application writers are Naive too.

Coders don't need time on supercolliders, or satellite high resolution IR cameras. People who do large scale science need access to resources which are limited to large institutions, these institutions, as a common practice, enforce strict IP regulation.

The fact that it is bad for science/society is a problem, but has NOTHING to do with any wrong doing by the CRU.

>> ^MilkmanDan: I just mean that the burden of proof needs to be on the AGW supporting people

That's birther logic.

Science is not about perfection, it's about the best available hypothesis. AGW opponents have not yet put forth models which work better than the models being used by supporters of AGW, therefor AGW is considered the consensus scientific opinion. None of these models are perfect, but we should still use the best ones, even if some folks don't like the implications.

How can you expect me to take these folks seriously, much less award them correctness by default, when Ball supports ,the trivially falsifiable, urban-concrete-island hypothesis for GW?

Hoax: 0 Truth: 1 Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

*beg

Sending this video to Beggar's Canyon to plea for a little attention - beg requested by original submitter bluecliff.

I'd like to see this guy's emails.

If he's actually interested in science and transparency, and not just influencing public perceptions of climate science, he shouldn't have a problem handing them over.


==================================== ==================================================
Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP).[1] Two of the three directors of the NRSP - Timothy Egan and Julio Lagos - are executives with the PR and lobbying company, the High Park Group (HPG).[2] Both HPG and Egan and Lagos work for energy industry clients and companies on energy policy.[3]

Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science.[4] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations.[5]

==================================== ==================================================

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball

This video is stupid. It's like watching an interview with the few biologists that don't believe in evolution.

>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^MilkmanDan: I just mean that the burden of proof needs to be on the AGW supporting people
That's birther logic.
Science is not about perfection, it's about the best available hypothesis. AGW opponents have not yet put forth models which work better than the models being used by supporters of AGW, therefor AGW is considered the consensus scientific opinion. None of these models are perfect, but we should still use the best ones, even if some folks don't like the implications.
How can you expect me to take these folks seriously, much less award them correctness by default, when Ball supports ,the trivially falsifiable, urban-concrete-island hypothesis for GW?


I disagree that it is "birther logic". Saying that Obama is not a US citizen is an extraordinary (extraordinarily stupid) claim. Those that would make the claim should expect to be required to prove it for us to take them seriously. Clearly they cannot.

The idea of Global Warming is not a particularly extraordinary claim in and of itself. Suggesting that most of the warming comes from human-caused CO2 emissions is more notable, and suggesting that unless we curtail those emissions we will cause catastrophic and irreparable harm to the global climate (sunburn, melted ice caps, dead polar bears, tornadoes, hurricanes, and broken ocean currents) is extraordinary. That doesn't necessarily mean it might not be true, but I don't think it is at all unreasonable to require clear objective evidence and some amount of proof that they understand the system well enough to account for present conditions based on past data, or even showing that they are capable of providing predictions of future conditions that actually pan out.