You obviously didn't read anything I wrote because I didn't agree with the prospect of land being the basis for voting. I spin your comment on critical thinking back at yourself and challenge you to read my comments for how they were intended. GWIZ has a comment right above yourself that mimics what I have said in a much better phrasing. Perhaps try and be a bit more transcendent yourself, sir.

In reply to this comment by mgittle:
@GeeSussFreeK @Winstonfield_Pennypacker

Let's do a fun critical thinking exercise! You guys really need it.

Say someone's company asks them to move to a different state or city and take a position for 2 years, after which they'll be asked to move again to a possibly more permanent position. That person looks at the local rental/housing market and decides it'll be cheaper to rent for those two years because the cost of the loan/interest and the potential hassle of selling the house (possibly at a loss) is really risky to deal with when you know you're going to move.

That person, who is capable of making an intelligent and informed decision, shouldn't be allowed to vote? Even using your "logic", I can see how someone could feel it prudent to prevent "temporary" residents from voting on local matters like millages, mayoral elections, etc, but state and national elections? Really?

This also doesn't consider college students, people who are living together but not married (such as with significant others or family members who own homes), or millions of other people who simply can't afford homes or don't want the lifestyle, maintenance costs, etc of owning a home.

I was really trying to avoid making any sort of personal attack with this...but I have to ask, did you even think about what you were saying before you typed it out?

Ok, as you cited wikipedia, I will as well. "Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument." It's ad hominem. Further, as you stated, pseudoscientific is a pejorative. It's an attack on his credibility as a scientist by associating him with people like what's his name from Growing Pains.

I never criticized his discussion of the beetle. I am not an entomologist, I'm a vision scientist. I criticized the implication that people who believe like Behe also believe that the eye was too complicated to have evolved. On the contrary, Behe openly admits the likelihood of the evolution of the eye once started from an eyespot, or simple photoreceptor of any sort. Where he noted the possibility of irreducible complexity was in the biochemical transduction of light into electrochemical gradients. That argument was never addressed in the video.

Further, when talking about his views as pseudoscientific, I presume you are referring the common complaint that ID is unfalsifiable. Well, then, I would challenge you to express how the theory of evolution itself could be falsified? Here's Darwin's take from the Origin of Species: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." If you take the position that all claims of irreducible complexity are simply matters of the poverty of imagination, and as such it is not demonstrable, you open evolution up to the same criticism.

While I agree, a hole in our understanding of the universe should not invite the cure-all "God did it," the problem of the falsifiability of evolution remains. That is, those that wish to put evolution into the purview of science, should precisely define what they would accept as evidence it is wrong. While Dawkins often claims scientists do this, I've rarely seen him publicly explain what such evidence would be. When he does, it is usually something snide, such as "finding precambrian fossils of hippos." I find that argument about as appealing as the crocoduck.

I find commercial media political analysis to be pretty stupid in general. They often get hung up on petty details, missing the important points, or perhaps not allowed to speak of important points for fear of scaring off corporate investors. I don't waste my time with either Olbermann (though I don't think he should have been booted off his network) or O'Reilly, although Maddow is pretty good. PBS, NPR and print media offer much deeper, more intellectual coverage, probably because they worry less about pleasing advertisers and can focus on doing their job.

The center is all very relative in our politics. Right of center Democrats who support common sense programs like health care are considered extremists; in the rest of the world, healthcare is a bipartisan issue. The American 'center' lies between right of center moderate dems, and batshit loonies like Sarah Palin on the right. It's not really a middle at all, it's more of a mean; a mean that shifts further and further to the right.

I challenge you to find a genuine liberal extremist who holds any political sway.

Anyway, I agree with Maher that being centrist for the sake of being centrist is a fools errand. It doesn't make you wise, intelligent or in any way independent. When you look at the agenda of the American right, it's easy to see that it is all based around sucking up to corporations. Cap and trade, corporate tax cuts, limiting social services, climate science "skepticism".... They offer nothing helpful to the average Joe. Once you cast a vote for corporatism, you lose the right to call yourself independent.

Anyway, the laptop is almost out of juice, so I'm going to cut this short...



In reply to this comment by hPOD:
It's hard to take an obviously biased [and somewhat insane] Bill Maher seriously. Maher hasn't been watchable for about 4 years now, and he's getting worse and worse. I understand the point you're trying to make, but as a person who truly stands in the middle, I see the extremes in both sides all the time, and that includes Olbermann. Unlike most, I actually DO watch Olbermann AND O'Riley. Well, not Olbermann anymore, but you get the point. I know you want to believe that everything Olbermann touches on is fact based, and everything O'Riley opines on is propaganda based, but that's not reality. There are times both make solid points, and there are times you can tell their <insert right/left> leaning opinions shine on their biased tendencies.

My voting record stands by the fact I call things as I see them, down the middle. In the last 5 Presidential elections, I've voted for 2 Republicans, 2 Democrats and 1 Independent.

A lot of people love to say they're down the middle, and they can see/hear both sides, but their slanted voting records show otherwise. I don't vote for parties, I vote for candidates, whether those votes end up being mistakes in the long run there is little I can do about, but the fact is, I'm one of the very few that actually does ride the fence. Quite a few of my friends, for example, claim the same...but their voting records show pure republican or pure democratic bias.

Maher has let his anti-religious lunacy get the better of him, and this is coming from an avid Hitchen's fan, who is also anti-religious. Hitchen's said it best when he mocked Maher's crowd for believing anything he says and laughing at any Bush joke he used. If I cared enough, going back to the beginning of the United States, I'd venture to say that I could find good things and bad things every single President has done, including Bush Jr and Obama.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
0:50 is relevant to our conversation:

http://videosift.com/video/Bill-Maher-Critiques-Stewart-Colbert-Rally

>> ^Lowen:

We know vaccines work because we checked to see if they work via scientific method. The results were and are very clear, so the medical community can say with certainty that they work and are not snake oil.
I challenge you to find this clarity, or even a consensus, similar to what vaccination enjoys with the medical profession, within the community of economic experts.

Let's turn this double standard right on around. I challenge you to find the level of clarity, or even a consensus, similar to what vaccination enjoys with the medical profession, within the community of economic experts, that says to believe these programs were effective is akin to believing that human sacrifice is effective.

>> ^Lowen:
They are not the same.
and, FYI my comment was a sarcastic remark, not a serious comparison.

Right, and when I responded to your hyperbole with my own, you dismissed it. You didn't present an argument, you just flapped your yap with completely unjustified smug certainty.

I'm certainly up to hashing through an in-depth debate of whether any of these programs did what they were supposed to, if you put forth an actual argument. But I'm going to treat a snide, off the cuff remark like a snide, off the cuff remark.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lowen:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Lowen:
By the same logic Rachel uses, human sacrifice as practiced by the Aztec also worked.

By the same logic you're using, we should be deeply skeptical that vaccination works.

No, not really.

The logic Rachel is using is scientific method, established by experts in their respective fields. TARP did better than anyone ever dreamed it would. The stimulus created the number of jobs it was expected to, and health care reform is a massive improvement to the system on every front.
You're basing your comment on what logic, exactly? We did all this stuff, and nothing obviously good happened, therefore it must have had no effect?
Again, that logic implies you should be skeptical of vaccination. Nothing's wrong, they stick you with a needle, and then there's no apparent effect. Vaccines must be snake oil!


We know vaccines work because we checked to see if they work via scientific method. The results were and are very clear, so the medical community can say with certainty that they work and are not snake oil.

I challenge you to find this clarity, or even a consensus, similar to what vaccination enjoys with the medical profession, within the community of economic experts.

They are not the same.

and, FYI my comment was a sarcastic remark, not a serious comparison. However I stand by the point I was making. Even if you're right and we know that these programs actually worked, neither you nor Rachael offer any evidence for believing why they worked beyond saying that some experts believe so. While it's fine to start with expert opinions, it isn't enough to justify your smug certainty.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Freeing slaves, giving women the right to vote, legalizing drugs or prostitution...these aren't even blips on the radar compared to the fundamental societal changes that legalizing gay 'marriage' might bring.


Though I would argue several points of your response, this is the fundamental position that I find patently ridiculous. Gays are already living together in loving, committed, long-term relationships. They are already raising children. They already have some of the same rights as marriage through "civil unions". And there is not one shred, not one single iota of data to suggest that anyone is being harmed by this except for thick-headed conservatives who can't get over their "ewwww" reaction. Allowing gays to apply the word "marriage" to their relationships would do nothing except give them a few more of the privileges that heterosexual couples have and, more importantly, bring an end to the legally sanctioned classification of second-class citizen.

I challenge you or any other homophobe to explain one single concrete harm that would befall society by allowing gays full marriage rights. You can't, because all opposition arguments are based on religion and fear of the unknown, combined with a fundamental distaste for anything that is categorized as "different than me".

First of all, I doubt the claim can be verified that taxes reduce consumption. I would challenge you to find any study that supports taxes have slowed smoking adoption among teens rather than increasing dissemination of health facts of smoking, or it just going out of style.

But that is a more technocratic argument. Why is the government singling out smokers, why not people who don't take an afternoon jog? Surly the government should encourage jogging with fines right? Jogging is healthy, not jogging is not, so why not tax not jogging? That is what it means to live in a free society, or in this case, not live in one.

Sin taxes are not taxes at all, but fines. Fines for expressing freedoms are immoral and reprehensible and have no place in a free society. That is why I raise the moral argument. To manipulate government imposed fines to enforce moral agendas is no better than any other form of tyranny of majority will. If that be the case, there is no defense against religious right coming to power and demanding a fine for people who don't pray, after all, that affects their spiritual health.

You assume that just because it relates to better health then it is ok for the government to get involved in, but health isn't the governments job, it's yours and mine. If I don't want to jog, and I want to smoke, you have no right to fine me. That is what it is, it isn't a tax, its a fine. Taxes are something we all pay for mutual benefit, like cops, roads, schools, ect. A tax on a substance to provide a dis-insensitive is legislating morality, and shouldn't be tolerated in any form. I don't argue against the objective however, just the means. I find smoking pretty gross, and would teach my kids to stay away from it as my parents taught me, but legislation is just wrong.

In America, we have ways of handling environmental damage through the courts. And I think there is something to be said about redefining laws to take into consideration property rights of air and water run off. Local communities that are affected by the consequences of local pollution are in a better place to demand reparations than arbitrary taxes that the local affections will never see. That is the real crime. These EPA taxes go to Washington and never come back to the communities they were extracted from, its highway robbery.

On the whole your arguments are completely flat, make no sense at all and simply serve to show that you have no real understanding of the subject. ( you see, name calling isn't very nice or constructive)

Portal in a Nutshell. (MAJOR SPOILERS - you'd be better off just playing the thing yourself - it's a perfect game IMO)

Created by Valve, makers of Half-Life, Left 4 Dead and Team Fortress, Portal is at it's heart an ingeneous puzzle game that focuses around a Portal gun. This gun is basically a wormhole gun that allows you to project entry/exit points onto walls, ceilings and floors which you can then travel through. The physics in the game are perfect and momentum figures into the puzzles in a very satisfying way. The increasingly more challenging levels are all based around getting from the beginning of the level to the end, and some of the later ones take some real brain power to figure out.

Beyond this, they've crafted a fairly brilliant story, narrated by the only speaking character in the game, GLaDOS, who is the insane computer in charge of the research facility that you are trapped in. The dialog is very witty and the rapidly decreasing mental state of GLaDOS's AI, and adds a lot of tension to the game. You slowly realize that there are major problems with this facility, and things unfold in an interesting way.

At one point, you are tasked with caring for a 'companion cube'. Later you are asked to 'kill' the cube by dropping it into an incinerator. Later in the game GLaDOS reprimands you for doing this.

As a reward for completing all of the research challenges, you are promised a tasty slice of cake. As inevitably escape research maze, you find notes from others who have presumably escaped too. You find things on the wall that say 'The Cake Is A Lie'.

Great boss battle at the end, and just when you think the fun is over, GLaDOS herself sings this amazing hilarious song by Johnathan Coultan.

In reply to this comment by Croccydile:
Am I the last gamer on Earth to not know what the deal is with this game? The limit of my knowledge involves overplayed jokes about some cake or something.

I don't know, it seems to have some truth to me. If you are submissive in any interactions then the other person will tend to be the opposite, if you are dominant then the other will either tend to give way to your, or challenge you. Treating each other as equals can't be a bad thing...

Sorry for this tangential interjection, but your poetic text formating is really rough on the eyes for comments this long. It makes me not want to read it. My 2 cents. >> ^enoch:

ok netrunner.
i will take "i didnt mean to offend you" as an apology for calling me,scmawy and rasch passive agressive cowards who refuse to say something to your face.
you really dont have any understanding do you?
sighs..
ok..and i say this with all sincerity and in the most human way.
what was between you and choggie was between you and choggie.same as with krono and others.
it is not only unfair to lump schmawy rasch and i into that polemic but dishonest.
you yourself have stated that all of us dont have a problem with you and vice versa.
well i know i didnt until you called me a pussy.
yet you continue to miss the point.
a point i grow weary of having to make over and over and over due to your prejudices concerning choggie.
i TOTALLY get he was a cock to you..and others.
i am not dismissing that nor am i condoning by my words choggies actions in that regard.
i never have and neither has schmawy nor rasch (not that i have ever seen anyway).
what you failed to realize in my now multiple posts is the truth of what i was speaking and it had only a fraction to do with choggie.
maybe you dont think i am smart enough to make these observations.
maybe just the word "choggie" blinds you to them fueled by your bitter past with him.
i do not know netrunner and that is your path to walk.
what i DO know is that what i was trying and i gather i have failed miserably by yours and others comments,is to reveal to everybody that there is a danger in like-mindedness.
i see so many people berate,me included,fundamentalist christians... because why?
why do we berate them?
is it ONLY because they seem so close minded?
or that they refuse to recognize facts which may disagree with their dogma?
well of course..partially.
but the real danger with a fundamentalist is the STAGNATION.
the stagnation of mind and spirit.
it is death..a very slow and drawn out death.
now we could talk for days the intricacies of choggie.the good and ill but we are past that..
the thing that choggie fought for..misguided and rudely most of the time is STILL a noble thing to fight for.
would you like to now one of my favorite tactics?
which of course now i am going to have to change since i am posting it here.
i will put out an opposing argument that may be going on in comments..
not because i actually believe that argument,many times i dont..
no..the reason i do that is so that somebody will challenge my argument and in doing so have to defend theirs.
and to accomplish that they have to THINK about how they came to that conclusion and it reveals to me their thought processes.
if they didnt come up with the argument in the first place then i can easily dismantle it due to the fact it was never theirs to begin with.
no hurt feelings..well..maybe a bruised ego but that is all and the next time they get challenged you can bet your bippy they will be prepared.
i vote for every one of blankfists libertarian videos.
does this mean i am libertarian?
not really..but since the sift has become a place where votes are seen as "agreeing" or "disagreeing" many times an unpopular political video needs to be heard.even if i disagree with it.
i give away votes like we are living in new orleans and its mardi gras.
does this mean i "agree" with every videos content? hell no.
there is nothing more satisfying than poppin a vid with 9 votes.
or helping a new sifter get a star.or doing a pq dive and finding a gem i can promote.
or having a heated argument over something i care about with people i respect.
these are good things.
things that make this place special.
you felt that choggie tried to silence you and that had to have been a crappy feeling and one that would have pissed me off.
you have every right to be pissed but thats your deal with choggie.
now you may sift differently and probably do.
but i sift my way and thats how i enjoy this site but i have seen people shunned and berated for posting things that others either disagree or find laughable.
and all it takes is the ONE comment..just one.
and then the ball starts rolling and then we wonder..hey whatever happened to so and so?
remember how choggie made you FEEL.
now imagine being new here and posting a video that gets laughed at..snide remarks.
your new..you thought people would love your new christian rock video.
am i accusing you of this? no..i have never seen you behave in that manner but i have seen others.
who are you..or i for that matter to judge anothers passions,joys or interests as worthy or unworthy?
we vote on quality not to ostrasize.
maybe my fears are unfounded or misguided but i dont think they are.
the comments you have made have proven that to me.
i hope i have made myself clear.
if i havent well..tough titties cuz i am done with this subject.
we are cool netrunner.
go in peace brother.
namaste.

ok netrunner.
i will take "i didnt mean to offend you" as an apology for calling me,scmawy and rasch passive agressive cowards who refuse to say something to your face.
you really dont have any understanding do you?
sighs..
ok..and i say this with all sincerity and in the most human way.
what was between you and choggie was between you and choggie.same as with krono and others.
it is not only unfair to lump schmawy rasch and i into that polemic but dishonest.
you yourself have stated that all of us dont have a problem with you and vice versa.
well i know i didnt until you called me a pussy.
yet you continue to miss the point.
a point i grow weary of having to make over and over and over due to your prejudices concerning choggie.
i TOTALLY get he was a cock to you..and others.
i am not dismissing that nor am i condoning by my words choggies actions in that regard.
i never have and neither has schmawy nor rasch (not that i have ever seen anyway).
what you failed to realize in my now multiple posts is the truth of what i was speaking and it had only a fraction to do with choggie.
maybe you dont think i am smart enough to make these observations.
maybe just the word "choggie" blinds you to them fueled by your bitter past with him.
i do not know netrunner and that is your path to walk.
what i DO know is that what i was trying and i gather i have failed miserably by yours and others comments,is to reveal to everybody that there is a danger in like-mindedness.
i see so many people berate,me included,fundamentalist christians... because why?
why do we berate them?
is it ONLY because they seem so close minded?
or that they refuse to recognize facts which may disagree with their dogma?
well of course..partially.
but the real danger with a fundamentalist is the STAGNATION.
the stagnation of mind and spirit.
it is death..a very slow and drawn out death.
now we could talk for days the intricacies of choggie.the good and ill but we are past that..
the thing that choggie fought for..misguided and rudely most of the time is STILL a noble thing to fight for.
would you like to now one of my favorite tactics?
which of course now i am going to have to change since i am posting it here.
i will put out an opposing argument that may be going on in comments..
not because i actually believe that argument,many times i dont..
no..the reason i do that is so that somebody will challenge my argument and in doing so have to defend theirs.
and to accomplish that they have to THINK about how they came to that conclusion and it reveals to me their thought processes.
if they didnt come up with the argument in the first place then i can easily dismantle it due to the fact it was never theirs to begin with.
no hurt feelings..well..maybe a bruised ego but that is all and the next time they get challenged you can bet your bippy they will be prepared.
i vote for every one of blankfists libertarian videos.
does this mean i am libertarian?
not really..but since the sift has become a place where votes are seen as "agreeing" or "disagreeing" many times an unpopular political video needs to be heard.even if i disagree with it.
i give away votes like we are living in new orleans and its mardi gras.
does this mean i "agree" with every videos content? hell no.
there is nothing more satisfying than poppin a vid with 9 votes.
or helping a new sifter get a star.or doing a pq dive and finding a gem i can promote.
or having a heated argument over something i care about with people i respect.
these are good things.
things that make this place special.
you felt that choggie tried to silence you and that had to have been a crappy feeling and one that would have pissed me off.
you have every right to be pissed but thats your deal with choggie.
now you may sift differently and probably do.
but i sift my way and thats how i enjoy this site but i have seen people shunned and berated for posting things that others either disagree or find laughable.
and all it takes is the ONE comment..just one.
and then the ball starts rolling and then we wonder..hey whatever happened to so and so?
remember how choggie made you FEEL.
now imagine being new here and posting a video that gets laughed at..snide remarks.
your new..you thought people would love your new christian rock video.
am i accusing you of this? no..i have never seen you behave in that manner but i have seen others.
who are you..or i for that matter to judge anothers passions,joys or interests as worthy or unworthy?
we vote on quality not to ostrasize.
maybe my fears are unfounded or misguided but i dont think they are.
the comments you have made have proven that to me.
i hope i have made myself clear.
if i havent well..tough titties cuz i am done with this subject.
we are cool netrunner.
go in peace brother.
namaste.

@rosser99

I think it's impractical to think about it as right and wrong anymore. File sharing isn't going away, policing the internet is never going to be plausible or practical, lawsuits are a drop in the ocean and the measures they're using now with having ISPs in certain countries such as France disconnect you on a 3 strikes rule are bound to be circumvented in one form or another. I mean sure, you can have opinions on it either way, but moral arguments won't change the state of things. The real question should be how should the industry adapt?

What record companies should be doing is slimming down by moving towards internet distribution and promotion, and casting a wider net by relying less on one-hit wonders and more to catering to a broad range of niche audiences that they're losing by the throng. Instead they're going in the opposite direction.

I remember reading a thread in a popular music file-sharing hub by an ex-recording industry professional that back-catalogues and collectors editions are where the real dough is made. Many of the 'artists' (I use the term loosely) will be forgotten and never heard of by the end of the year. Plunging sales have meant that record companies have become more concerned with making the quick buck, extract the one hit, and move on. As a result the vast majority of artists are simply not able to develop their musical talent on big-name record companies over time because they're passed on for the next big hit. Similarly bands that are selected and promoted are the ones that have the most broad and banal appeal. You know, the ones that sound like every generic hip-hop song you've heard in last 3 years, the ones that have strippers prancing around during the entire video clip. The problem is, there's a sizable group of people who no longer have any interest in laying down money for this disposable music.

The successful ones are also generally bled dry nowadays. It used to be that live performances and merchandise profits were entirely or mostly in the purview of the artist, now that record companies are having their purse strings tightening, they're extending their contracts to include chips out of these earnings too. It'll be hard to tell what this environment will eventually lead to in terms of mainstream music progression. I think it's inevitable though that the likes of iTunes (which has more or less already adopted this model) will begin to dominate. Perhaps at that point we will see some kind of turning point.

As far as I'm concerned the ability to sample music has meant that I've been able to discover some great bands, and had the opportunity to buy their albums (I tend to buy in 10+ bulk orders every so often) and otherwise support them by going to see their shows. It has also meant that I've only paid good money for albums that stand the test of time and have been able to support bands that genuinely need the monetary support to continue their endeavor rather than reward big-name labels for their exorbitant ad campaigns.

So YEAH! I challenge you to read all that

>> ^peggedbea:
help, im a man on the sift and unattractive woman are sexualizing themselves in ways im not comfortable with.
if they were hot young girls jumping up and down or doing something worthless and unfunny, that never the less made me think of sex without ACTUALLY thinking about sex, where the sex thought only existed in my imagination. id send it straight to number one.

or if this was a fucking family guy video, id tell people they were pretentious and should let the votes decide what stays and goes.
sometimes i feel like mink. FUCK.
who defines quality?


I challenge you to find me another sifted video that is this graphic, and not in some way educational.

(I.e. Nothing you'd find in a medical textbook. So, things that are just diagrams, or explinations of how things work)

Nothing you will find will be this graphic (Seeing full on genitals, people in the act of pleasuring themselves in full view. etc.) The worst I've been able to find is a video collection of "O Faces" and one from Gwiz about the "Anatomy of the Vagina" which just seemed to be him posting it for the hell of it, because the video he posted that was from a porn site got discarded.

This has nothing to do with the fact that they're all older, it's the fact that what they're doing is sexually explicit, and doesn't belong on the sift.

>> ^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.

>> ^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.