MOSTLY BECAUSE I don’t have either the in-depth academic training, or the credentials that are supposed to certify that training. But even I understand this about science and the scientific method — it’s all about reproducible results. And because of that, this kind of attitude:
Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/-” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
Ought to get Jones laughed off the public stage, and not given credence by international bodies that threaten to wreck the world economy on the basis of his brainfart.
Read the whole thing, and see if you don’t agree that, on this basis alone — the refusal to provide data for verification of their results — the whole catastrophic climate change fraud ought to be disregarded as a driver of public policy.
* I don’t even (you knew this was coming, dincha?) play one on TV. Or in the movies.