Eli Rabett has spotted some excellent points in the Royal Society of Chemistry submission to the Parliamentary inquiry into the CRU hack.
Eli Rabett has spotted some excellent points in the Royal Society of Chemistry submission to the Parliamentary inquiry into the CRU hack.
Eli Rabett seems to have overlooked teo of the conclusions of the RSC evidence:
Access to reliable, up-to-date information is vital to advancing research and enabling the discovery or development of solutions to global issues. Sharing information is especially important in multi-disciplinary research, where progress is very much dependent on willing and effective communication between different speciality areas.
The RSC firmly believes that the benefits of scientific data being made available and thus open to scrutiny outweigh the perceived risks. To this end, scientific information should be made available on request as outlined in the Freedom of Information Act.
These are particularly pertinent to the actions of Professor Jones and his colleagues both at CRU and elsewhere who have done everything in their power to prevent sharing the data with people that they do not like.
Nope, no problem there arthur dent. That sort of thing is covered by the problem that many data sources don’t want CRU to release the data, preferring to charge people for it themselves. What they can release, was released.
So how did Professor Jones release the same data without condition to several of his colleagues. No mention of so called binding agreements in those cases.
As for “many” data sources, CRU could only come up with those for around 5% of the available data.