There were some stories published recently how difficult it is to gain access to the raw data. CRU and organizations like it have exclusive access to it and as referenced in few of those emails(they refer to people asking for access as "loons trying to disprove") are quite reluctant to give the control away. Why give something so valuable away when by just creating pretty graphs out of it you can secure government funding, place in most reputable science journals and hundreds of citations a year from people having to cite YOUR papers instead of the real data which they can't access?

Wasn't some of the hitherto secret data included in the hacked emails as attachments? How much is still unavailable?

I wish the AGW folks would get out in front of this and stop acting like partisan hacks. As it stands today, many people have written off AGW as a fraud, nevermind whatever other other evidence may exist. Appeals to science and its trappings of legitimacy will fall on deaf ears if the researchers at the CRU all keep their positions and the data is not made publically available.

I suspect the folks at CRU are keeping quiet in the hopes that the media, the people funding them and policy makers will ignore it. So far, that seems like a pretty reasonable hope:

Here is the media completely ignoring the issue of data deletion, utterly shitty code and scientific misconduct: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.ht...

Here is a policy maker ignoring it: http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/11/25/25climatewire-obama-...

I understand their concern.

It's easy to imagine loons (or worse) getting access to the data, publishing findings that prove the warming is indeed caused by the decline in the pirate population, getting airtime in Fox News and other similar media outlets and making, thus, it true to a large chunk of the populace.

We don't need people, deliberately or not, spreading disinformation.

If I'm the pope and I'm trying to cover up touching little boys in the naughty-place I would use the same reasoning. Imagine the liberal loons (or worse) getting airtime on CNN and huffpo and making it sound like all priests are pedophiles. We don't need those dirty filthy pagans, deliberately or not, spreading disinformation.

The comparison above is absurd. Nobody os afraid of CNN. What frightens me is that there is a lot of people willing to do whatever is necessary to preserve their profits. An easy comparison could be with the tobacco industry and their studies that proved no connection between smoking and cancer and how addictive smoking is. Next to big oil, the tobacco industry is a bastion of morality.

Right, we can't have people who haven't already arrived at the "correct" conclusion looking at the data...

Is this really what "science" has come to?

I said I understood. I didn't say I agreed.

So you think that the world is better served when science is done behind closed doors? People will spread disinformation regardless of whether they have access to climate models or not. This sort of attitude flies in the face of the open source philosophy.

Closed doors? No way! I said I understand their concern that many well funded groups would certainly spread even more disinformation if they had a dataset to base it on.

In the current state of affairs, you can bet many people will publish wrong results for money, fame or any combination of both. It's not about you arriving at a correct answer, but if someone can be trusted to do real analysis on the data and not spin it in ways that suit their purpose.

Not all news outlets have a strong peer-review process for publishing news. Not all research organizations do real research.

If some of the scientists that have access to this dataset are right, the delay in addressing climate change caused by such confusion could mean our extinction.

I would not even suggest this as a correct course of action if there weren't so many different economic interests at play. Lots of people stand to lose a staggering amount of money and they won't place truth above their yearly bonuses, with little concern if a billion or so people die of thirst in the next 100 years.

"Closed doors? No way! I said I understand their concern that many well funded groups would certainly spread even more disinformation if they had a dataset to base it on."

If the standard for claims is such that code and data must be publicly available, claims made without such backing would be more easily dismissed.

As it is right now, the CRU is behaving exactly as I would expect a manipulative liar to act, and the justification seems to be that it's done to control prevent manipulative lying.

It's not a compelling argument, because it doesn't, really, and since no one is showing up with runnable code and complete data, all sorts of claims appear to have equal footing.

"Lots of people stand to lose a staggering amount of money and they won't place truth above their yearly bonuses, with little concern if a billion or so people die of thirst in the next 100 years."

Are there no millions to be made or lost for some of those arguing that climate change is man-made? Please; scumbags will play any side for a dollar.

"If the standard for claims is such that code and data must be publicly available, claims made without such backing would be more easily dismissed."

I am not sure Joe Sixpack can be convinced the claims have little merit if they have flashy graphics.

As for the CRU... Well... This is not a shining example of scientific conduct, but, as I said before, I am not too eager to blame them. Right now, they are in the middle of a very dangerous game.

And yes. Scumbags will play both sides. It's just that the "global warming doesn't exist" side has more money right now, so, most scumbags seem to line up on that side.

"I am not sure Joe Sixpack can be convinced the claims have little merit if they have flashy graphics."

So, better to assume the audience is too stupid or ignorant to think for themselves, and restrict open discussion and examination of the data and process?

That's bullshit.

The trouble is the concern that this might already be happening. At least with the data out there the serious scientists have a very strong compunction to "get it right".

Yes, but what if even a small oil company "invests" a couple hundred millions funding studies that - oddly enough - find all those other studies that point to global warming are wrong?

What if there is a ton of money in media outlets to voice those reports?

It would be foolish to disregard such a threat.

Im not unconvinced the reverse isn't happening. In the UK a number of green pressure groups fund the research; this is seems as perfectly acceptable. But I am not sure I agree.

It could be a reaction to the funding research aimed at refuting man-made global warming gets.

Well, I understand it as well, but considering the data was collected by meteorological stations funded by public money it should be considered public domain. I wonder if someone tried suing them for access to the raw data, if not it might be a good idea.