On Dec 24, 4:31*am, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
If you're trying to say that refusing FOI requests for raw data proves
fraud, you're quite wrong.

Much of the data was supplied by foreign governments under NDA
agreements, so FOIA or no FOIA it can't be released.

That may or may not be true.

What is without question true is that if the data can't be practically
reproduced by others or made available then you can't base science on
it.


The current squabble isn't at all edifying, but consider that many of the
skeptics are just sniping from the sidelines and are apparently unwilling
to go back to historic sources (all of which were published) and analyse
the data themselves. If they don't believe the CRU and IPCC thats
precisely what they should be doing.

It's been done.

I haven't been totally keeping track, but it seems that at least the
raw data for NZ, Australia (e.g. Darwin), and Russia looks quite
different to what the CRU has been using, via one or both of using
only the subset of stations that show warming, or the raw and
published data showing a long series of unexplained adjustments with
the effect of lowering old temperatures and raising recent ones.

This is even before you get into the discovery that you can feed
totally random data into Mann's program and it still produces a
"hockey stick".