Reply #212: you want exact quotes? Here you go:

[naaman fletcher]

The first is the direct attack on science itself. Modern science depends on the peer-review process and allowing others to check your work. These guys REFUSE to do that. They WILL NOT release their data:

"Subject: Re: WMO non respondo
… 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. …
Cheers Phil"

Then, when others try to get at the information through FOIA and its equivalents, these guys conspire to avoid the law, and say they will delete their data before they ever allow anyone to look at it:

"Mike,
…
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.

We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !

….

Phil"

And then again:



From: Phil Jones:

To: mann
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: “raymond s. bradley”, “Malcolm Hughes”

Mike, Ray and Malcolm,

…

Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !




So clearly you have a direct assault on Science. These guys will not let anybody else review their work or data. That doesn't bother you?

Of course there are the other suggestions about "hiding the decline" i.e. performing stunts on the data, although I have not read enough of that yet to form a sure opinion that I have the context correct.