<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:'bookman old style', 'new york', times, serif;font-size:10pt"><div>Rafal,</div><div><br></div><div>I have absolutely no reason to suspect that I am capable of becoming, in less time that it takes to actually follow that career path, as qualified to judge the merits of the data selection as any junior climatologist.</div><div><br></div><div>I similarly have no reason to suspect that you have any competence in the field, either.</div><div><br></div><div>I have no reason to believe that climatology is a discipline that can be picked up any easier than, say, oncology. I trust you to evaluate climate research as much as you should trust me to evaluate a clinical trial.</div><div><br></div><div>When I say "prove it", I don't mean that you should point me to the data you believe are fraudulent. I apologize that this wasn't clear, but I what I mean is, "Get
it proven".</div><div><br></div><div>If you're right, it is hugely important. If you're wrong, you're wrong about smearing people's names. Either way, it's important. Get it proven. Or drop it. </div><div><br></div><div>If you're right, you can prove it to the people who actually matter, and if you're right, it's really important, so you should. But to sit back and say, "Yeah, I looked at the data, it's a fraud," but show no interest in actually doing anything productive about it--what the hell is the point? </div><div><br></div><div style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt"><br><div style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki@gmail.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> ExI chat list
<extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Mon, March 1, 2010 11:03:55 PM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled<br></font><br>
I wrote:<br><br>>> I offered to send you a list of the peer-reviewed articles written<br>>> by Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, Phil Jones, and others, that contain<br>>> fraudulent data or conclusions, so as to enable you to see for<br>>> yourself the specific instances of fraud, in primary sources.<br><br>and Chris Luebcke recused himself from reading the aforementioned<br>primary sources as follows:<br><br>> I'm not a climatologist, or even a scientist.<br><br>and then proceeded to add:<br><br>> Put up or shut up, as they say.<br><br>### Chris, you demand proof from me but you refuse to read it when I<br>offer it to you, citing lack of competence. Yet, you have the temerity<br>to demand that *I* shut up, so that you, who admit to being completely<br>ignorant of the technical issues involved in this discussion, can go<br>home feeling victorious.<br><br>Does this make sense to
you?<br><br>Rafal<br>_______________________________________________<br>extropy-chat mailing list<br><a ymailto="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br><span><a target="_blank" href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a></span><br></div></div><div style="position:fixed"></div>
</div></body></html>