Laserfiche WebLink
14 <br /> requests regarding his dataset, but the receipt of large amounts of public funding pretty <br /> much obligates CRU to respond to these requests. The number of such requests would be <br /> drastically diminished if all relevant and available data and metadata were made publicly <br /> accessible, and if requests from Steve McIntyre were honored(I assume that many <br /> spurious requests have been made to support Steve McIntyre's request, and these would <br /> all disappear). <br /> The HADCRU hack has substantially increased the relevance of Climateaudit, WUWT, <br /> etc. The quickest way for HADCRU et al. to put Climateaudit and the rest of this tribe <br /> out of business is make all climate data and metadata public and make every effort to <br /> improve the datasets based on all feedback that you receive. Do this and they will quickly <br /> run out of steam and become irrelevant . Gavin Schmidt's current efforts at <br /> realclimate are a good step in the right direction of increasing transparency. <br /> But the broader issue is the need to increase the public credibility of climate science. This <br /> requires publicly available data and metadata, a rigorous peer review process, and <br /> responding to arguments raised by skeptics. The integrity of individual scientists that are <br /> in positions of responsibility (e.g. administrators at major research institutions, editorial <br /> boards, major committees, and assessments) is particularly important for the public <br /> credibility of climate science. The need for public credibility and transparency has <br /> dramatically increased in recent years as the policy relevance of climate research has <br /> increased. The climate research enterprise has not yet adapted to this need, and our <br /> institutions need to strategize to respond to this need. <br /> https://climateaudit.org/2009/11/22/curry-on-the-credibility-of-climate-research/ <br />