6 Comments

1. Omahoneymom

   The two previous letters do not even begin to sound like the same person wrote them! You’ ve got to be kidding. And how convenient that the second one could be found in the same document dump…I smell a rat.

   November 20, 2009 @ 8:52 pm
2. Tweets that mention Found in the CRU Document Dump: Michael Mann and History | Verum Serum -- Topsy.com

   [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Verum Serum, James Harris. James Harris said: Found in the CRU Document Dump: Michael Mann and History | Verum Serum http://bit.ly/60bRJR [...]

   November 20, 2009 @ 10:25 pm
3. Ralph Short

   So far, no one has stated any of these e mails are fraudulent. After reading a number of these messages on Anthony Watt’s site it is fair to say their “goal” is not science, their goal is to convince governments primarily, citizens if possible that their “science” is the only science in the climate debate.

   At the very least they are unprofessional. At the worst the “team” as they refer to it is simply making sure they continue to get millions of dollars of taxpayer money so they can continue to promote a scam.

   November 22, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
4. Keith

   Ralph

   I’ve read a number of your posts on this blog over the years, and have seen nothing that would qualify you to make an assesment of a scientists work, their methodology, or their qualification for doing this work. What scientific qualifications or expertise do you have?

   November 23, 2009 @ 1:17 am
5. Ralph Short

   Keith, thanks for the snide comment. First, one does not have to be a scientist to understand when people are manipulating data in order to satisfy an agenda. I am not a financier either, but based on what I have read about Bernie Madoff, he lied and distorted data, and thereby screwed the people who believed in his methodology. So, after spending hours reading many of the emails and comments from other professionals (pro and con) which included climatologists, programmers, etc. I concluded Phil Jones and others are more interested in achieving their agenda than in an honest and objective analysis of factual data.

   With regard to your question on my qualifications or expertise, I spent many years as a manufacturing manager dealing with complex processes and equipment. From that experience I learned early on that when the data conflicts with your own conclusions, you follow the data to draw a better conclusion. Sometimes, it means accepting another’s opinion and admitting you made a mistake. Sometimes it means you just go back to the proverbial “drawing board” and start the analysis over again. One thing that is critical is an open and objective mind.

   The tone of much of the emails from Jones et al is very different. It is more along the lines of defending the faith of AGW and appealing to an “elitism” to effectively limit inputs. Another aspect of it is much of the conversation within the “team” is petty and rather childish. Combine those elements with efforts to avoid foi requests and my conclusion is what I stated in my first entry.

   I do not know what your “expertise” is, nor do I care for that matter, but I will say based on your response to my entry you would fit in very nicely with “the team”.

   November 23, 2009 @ 5:13 am
6. Keith

   After reading a number of these messages on Anthony Watt’s site it is fair to say their “goal” is not science, their goal is to convince governments primarily, citizens if possible that their “science” is the only science in the climate debate.

   You are, by your own words, unqualified to make this assessment. So would I be, but since I’m not the one making it, that’s irrelevant.

   November 23, 2009 @ 2:36 pm