The data was out there the whole time, the people doing the lying were too lazy to look it up. And the scientist being bugged by the idiots gave them ammo by telling them to go to hell.
The 'climategate' inquiry at last vindicates Phil Jones ? and so must I | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian
The second issue, by contrast, it handles cleverly and conclusively. Instead of relying on other people's testimony, the review team carried out its own test: did publicly available data exist that would allow people to replicate CRU's temperature results? It found that the raw data were freely available on three US academic sites, and that competent researchers could write the computer code required to analyse them in less than two days, without asking CRU. It carried out its own analysis and produced a graph (Figure 6.1) almost identical to CRU's.
Four obvious conclusions follow. First, that all the information required to test CRU's results was already freely available. Second, that the stonking fuss its critics made about alleged manipulation of its data was groundless. Third, that there was nothing special about the unit's computer codes: the corresponding fuss that climate scientists made about CRU's intellectual property was also bogus. And fourth that, by reacting so defensively, the scientists at the unit kept this fake scandal alive.
