I wasn't aware that you needed to be "qualified" to be allowed to reproduce mathematical models.
There are plenty of reasons to be afraid of exposing internal communications due to the vagaries of political processes and vendettas.
To claim otherwise is naive, disingenuous, or both.
I wasn't aware that you needed to be "qualified" to be allowed to reproduce mathematical models.
I'm sure that if he just wasn't being kept down by those evil climate scientists, he'd prove them all wrong.
If you have nothing to hide, why won't you let me search your car?
I don't see what the fourth amendment has to do with this.
Please support the claim that they "hid" their data. Note that citing an unqualified politically biased source is not adequate support for such a serious scientific claim.
Think of this from their perspective: they're sick and tired of crackpots and conspiracy theorists taking their data, running ludicrous analyses on them, and misinforming the public. They don't have the time to shoot down every single terrible interpretation of the data there is, so the best action is to hide it.
Not saying this was the right move, but entirely understandable given their situation. The fact that they were not volunteering their data around is certainly not by itself damning evidence of any sort.
PS: Call up a research assistant and say I will pay you 200$ an hour to help me, and they will fall all over themselves to help you out. Although buying the computer time to actually run some of these simulations would get real expensive really quick.
As a programmer I wouldn't certainly not waste my time assisting someone who merely intended to smear my project in his blog to meet his own political ends.
Read your post, and then perhaps do a little soul searching about what science is really about.