Quote
Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data. Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004:

Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years 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.


Now, that would be funny if it wasn't so dumb. If his work was accurate, there would be nothing found wrong with it, so why (for that reason) would he mind someone making corrections in his 25 years of work? Wouldn't he want to know if he had made a mistake and would forever produce flawed reports based on incorrect assumptions? Shouldn't scientists be concerned with accuracy and TRUTH?

That right there is enough reason to cast doubt on anything that comes from that fellow. If he and his work won't stand scrutiny, why would he or his work be of value to me?

Frank