Dr. Mann’s computer programs are a secret because they are his private intellectual property; still, researchers can develop their own computer codes and use Mann’s data to verify his results. Scholars have replicated Dr. Mann’s results by using his data with their own computer programs.

Researchers need not have access to exactly the same computer programs (or “code”) as Dr. Mann developed. Dr. Mann’s results can be replicated using his underlying data and methodologies. See the letter (7-15-05) that Dr. Mann sent to the corrupt Congressman Joe Barton explaining the true facts and listing the Internet sites where his data was stored in 2005.

The MBH [Mann-Bradley-Hughes] data have been publicly available for more than a decade now! When Dr. Mann moved from U.Va, the same information and data were maintained through his Penn State research site.

Here is a link that has links to data. http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2011/11/dr-michael-manns-data-is-available-on.html

As an example, CRU’s work has been replicated to death, even by sceptics. I guess you won’t admit to your error, though.

. If a scientist wants to confirm his study, then he needs to publish ALL his data, methodology, code, etc. so others can replicate his work and confirm his conclusions.

Rubbish. Back when McIntyre and co were harassing the CRU with frivolous FOIA requests, It was already possible to replicate HadCRUT using only the papers describing their methodology and the ~98% of the data which was already freely available. Didn’t even take long; anyone halfway competent could do it in an afternoon, with a bit of effort.

McIntyre’s complaints about Briffa (and hence your own) are completely unfounded.

The last 2 basic steps of the scientific method are: 1. Communicate your results and, 2. Retest. The retesting is often performed by other scientists.

If a scientist’s study cannot be replicated, then the study is basically useless. If a scientist wants to confirm his study, then he needs to publish ALL his data, methodology, code, etc. so others can replicate his work and confirm his conclusions. A true scientist should welcome any and all attempts to prove him wrong. The goal is to come to the correct scientific conclusion, right?

So I have no sympathy for Briffa, the CRU, the University of East Anglia, or any other organization that refuses FOI requests for release of data. A FOI request should not even be necessary in the first place. They are just shooting themselves in the foot, All this does is reduce or eliminate the public’s confidence in the climate science community, because it gives the appearance that the scientists are trying to hide something. Climategate was a huge blow to the climate science in general, and the emails sure seem to indicate that the “cause” is more important than the science.

[DC: They're all commenting at the 99% of blogs that are discussing it. But be patient ...]

Add it all up and you have a filibuster. Keep talking and it will stop the rest of the participants from getting anything done.

Part of the point, I would suspect.

http://akwag.blogspot.com/2009/10/cold-logic-of-hockey-sticks.html