date: Mon Aug 24 14:54:00 2009
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Re: transparency
to: Harold Ambler <hambler@mac.com>

[[[unsent draft?]]]

    Dear Harold,
       You have come up with a whole list of motives for my actions, all of which are wrong.
    I don't consider myself a public servant, and I doubt many working in the University
   sector
    in the UK would either. University workers in the UK are not what we call civil servants.
    I will send you another paper
   At 14:24 24/08/2009, you wrote:

     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.

   Prof. Phil Jones
   Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
   School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
   University of East Anglia
   Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
   NR4 7TJ
   UK
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------