Bibliographic record
Abstract
My first encounter with Dr. Tim Ball was while watching him in the BBC documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, released in 2007. In a cast that listed, among others, well-known climate skeptics such as the Canadian environmentalist Patrick Moore, former member of Greenpeace; Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Patrick Michaels, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia; Nigel Calder, Editor of New Scientist from 1962 to 1966; John Christy, Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama; Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute; former British Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson; and Piers Corbyn, a British weather forecaster, Dr. Tim Ball was a pleasant surprise for me. Well-articulated, with a sense of humor that was difficult to ignore, Dr. Ball brought a voice of reason to the heated debate on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). His recent book, The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science, describes a collection of specific cases where, according to Dr. Ball, blatant corruption of science enabled the activities of “a cabal, a secret political clique or faction.” His main goal in this book was to “explain their motive and objectives, which were political, not scientific . . . How . . . they bypassed and perverted the scientific method . . . [and how] They effectively silenced scientists who tried to perform the normal roles of critics and skeptics” (pp. 3–4).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".