So who does have a right to look at the data, assuming we first disqualify anyone that antonovka thinks has the wrong political opinions? Isn't the scientific ideal all about openness and reproducible analyses? These emails make it look like the new ideal is supporting the "correct" political agenda.
If Stephen McIntyre is all about openness and taking advantage of the abhorrent disclosure of internal communications, why doesn't he follow suite by posting all of his personal e-mail correspondence, unedited for external review?
I'm sure there are more than a few gems.
Isn't the scientific ideal all about openness and reproducible analyses?
Yes, but when someone applies such a strong political ideology to twisting those analyses, how do you propose scientists respond?
Climate change has been so politicized by unqualified ideologues that I can hardly blame scientists for wishing to defend themselves from the worst of them.
If anything, these e-mails demonstrate that the data IS shared independently evaluated, but that the community has established political defenses to deal with political -- not scientific -- opponents.
To do otherwise would be naive. Complex topics fall easily to those who would politicize them.
These emails make it look like the new ideal is supporting the "correct" political agenda.
No, they demonstrate a clear interest in defending against the attacks of a very specific set of ideologues.
As someone who has had to defend engineering projects and people from angry corporate politics, I don't envy these climate change scientists in the least, and I certainly don't begrudge them their defensive positions.
