Originally Posted by
jcaplins
Perhaps I missed something, Is the data really being withheld?
All reputable scientific papers and journals will be complete with all sources for their data. Follow the trail of sources and you should have your data. I'm not going to look for it, I have better things to do. If some joe smo asked me to provide all the data, I'd tell 'em to go pound sand, and follow the trail of references themselves.
Hacking the e-mail will not in itself make anything more or less true, but it was obvious in this case that the info was quote mined and taken out of context to "prove" an already held opinion. It also speaks volumes about the credibility of those that would steal the info or those that willingly use the stolen info without regard to the law.
An illegal search of my house for a murder weapon will guarantee that that murder weapon will be inadmissible in court.
Kinda went astray of the original question, ehh? To answer: I havn't changed my mind.
Believe it or not, they are withholding the raw data. They provide results and homogenized "data" to the public--this would be similar to getting your paycheck and homogenized block hours.
I would never ask anyone to go get the data themselves, but there are statisticians and scientists who've been asking for it for years. McIntyre is one of these, he does all his work very publicly on climateaudit.org.
The emails certainly can be taken out of context. I don't put much stock in what they actually say (petty, empire-building, academic types), but I am glad that they have been released since this has stimulated actual debate on this issue. I'll add that one of the files has code that CRU used to assemble temperature sets. To my knowledge, no one has denied that this is what was used. If the code is flawed, that will be exposed in short order--and that is the way science should work.
We agree on one thing, I haven't changed my mind either.
WW