[puckhog]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Or that they simply think McIntyre is a dick and don't want to convenience him in any way at all. His past behaviour has not been unlike that of Jim Ballsillie.
McIntyre has had the hockey stick data, it's been reviewed and reported on by NRC on behalf of congress not to mention another independent review.

Your own posts states that they consider giving him the (unknown) data but he can decode it himself.

"This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them."

Believing someone is a dick is not a reason to withhold information. As you and I have discussed earlier in the thread, the assumptions used to treat data are equally as important as the data itself.

Really? It's not the intellectual property of the author(s), the institute and UK government data is part of the public domain of a Canadian. If you feel so strongly about that send me your e-mail so I might claim all research data from your lab. Don't even bother consulting with your supervisor. I mean ALL profs in Canada are paid by public institutions funded by the government. In fact give me a group e-mail for your department so I can have access to everyone's data.

Nope, not the author(s), but the client who hired the author(s). If a government agency funds a study, the study results become part of the public domain. As for the rest of your post, I work in the private sector, so you'll be getting no data from me. But try to contact a prof for the data and methods he/she used in a publicly funded study and let me know if they deny you that access.

Detestable because they don't share your views? Read your own quote. What are your thoughts on someone being blackballed if they're proven "bad behaviour"?

Well, that's a pretty slippery slope you're putting yourself on. I'd say it's a pretty bad precedent to set to say that it's okay to dig up records of "bad behaviour" to have those who don't agree with you banned from certain societys, functions, clubs, etc.

As for the potential funding issue. So what? What's the surprise and you feel that since 1990 ~$1m/year is a lot? Of course we should consider who is funding who but what's the big surprise here?

Why doesn't McIntyre get big oil to fund him so he can collect his own data? Or ... is he more vocal as a critical mouthpiece?

I would say that ~$1 million per year funding the research efforts of one person is a lot. Especially when you consider that the most likely case is that the contibutions were pretty low for the first 5-10 years (before Global Warming became huge) and have subsequently grown.

I'm not expressing any sort of surprise at the source of the funding, just looking for a justification as to why it's alright for one side to be funded by corporate interests, whereas it's unacceptable (in the minds of some) for the other side to be funded by Big Oil.

All I'm seeing here is negative science with minimal effort whatsoever from the negative crowd to produce their own results as they're too preoccupied trying to discredit everything else. And in other cases blatant fabrication of data for media use to "convince" poor individuals like TheU.

And the majority of your post is speculation or to quote Michael Mann.

sceptics were "taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious"

Well, I felt I pointed out the places where I outright speculated about what was happening. The negative crowd has been producing results for years, all of which gets downplayed because it disagrees with the "official" source of information. This calls into question the validity of the data that has been generally accepted for years.

I can't help but notice you ignored large sections of my post. Care to comment on the emails dealing with questionable treatment of data?