date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:24:47 -0500
from: Harold Ambler <hambler@mac.com>
subject: Re: transparency
to: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

   Dear Phil,

   Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful response. Thank you especially for the attachment.

   A couple of thoughts:

   1. Regarding the "scientists-only" policy. As a writer, I am puzzled by this. We in the
   publishing profession do not ordinarily object to scientists writing articles and books
   intended for a wide audience, even if it is clear that the individual is not a "born
   writer" or even a comfortable one. Plenty of valuable mass-market books have been written,
   nonetheless, by such authors, simply because the information that they were conveying
   probably could not have come from any other source. Some scientists write like angels, of
   course.

   2. I do not share the view that the days when amateurs contributed meaningfully to the
   development of science have come to an end. If you have studied the history of science,
   particularly that of your own great country, then you already know that non-academic,
   frequently self-taught individuals have changed the scientific debate permanently in a
   given field because of their own (frequently scoffed-at) work. Your somewhat condescending
   position toward "non-scientists" is in keeping with Royal Society snobbery of the 19th
   century, and I would ask you to consider the possibility that, like those of the society,
   your efforts to keep the barbarians at the gate will be shown in the end to be a waste of
   time.

   3. You write, "Our ftp site has had some data deleted from it. It is a site we use when

    working with other scientists around the world. The datasets were not explained.

    It seemed easier to stop people wasting their time trying to determine what it was."

   I admit that this does not seem as straightforward as, again, one might expect from a
   public servant. The decision to delete data was made during a white-hot dispute with a
   little-liked and extremely dogged and intelligent statistician by the name of Steve
   McIntyre. Whether or not you view Mr. McIntyre as the kind of figure whom the Royal Society
   fought to keep on the margins of scientific inquiry (or farther out than that), he is
   exactly such a figure.

   If you wanted to "defeat" him in intellectual battle, as you naturally would, the best way
   to do so is not to hide data and maintain that you are not hiding data.

   The data should be restored to the website, ASAP. Mr. McIntyre should be allowed to "audit"
   your methodology. If your intellectual position is truly superior to his, then the
   "schooling" that you give to him in response will be of note to many.

   Thank you for your consideration.

   All the best, in all things,

   Harold

   On Aug 24, 2009, at 3:59 AM, Phil Jones wrote:

      It seemed easier to stop people wasting their time trying to determine what it was.