First, he has NEVER stonewalled requests for the raw data. [emphasis added]
the list of stations that CRU used was published in 2008
the programme that produced the global temperature average had been available from the Met Office since December 2009.
So you admit that they stonewalled on the station list till 2008? And you admit that they didn't release their software until after they had been exposed by the climate gate email release? I may not have been clear, but I didn't mean to imply that they still haven't released stuff, but only that they were stonewalling at one time.
Jones PERSONALLY refused. The information about what data was used has been available since the original papers and research were performed! IT'S IN THE RESEARCH
Strange. Why didn't he just give the URL for the files instead of refusing. But of course you've quoted a source admitting he didn't release the station list till 2008. So it doesn't look like it was "IN THE RESEARCH".
It has only been replicated by his buddies.
You cite BEST as replication by some other than buddies, but I was referring to replication of the hockey stick. BEST did not replicate the hockey stick. Furthermore, BEST was lead by an alarmist, so that is not clearly replication by other than buddies.
when they are caught in their lies and ignorance, they NEVER, and I mean *NEVER* admit fault and accept what they were wrong about.
Anthony Watts admitted after his own study that the average temperature trend of the urban stations was no higher than the good rural stations. Of course he then minimized it and tried to make a seemingly insignificant issue of the difference between the trends in the diurnal temperature range. I see tons of ignorance on the skeptic side. The alarmist side actually seems to be much more grounded in facts. But now we're seeing that the alarmist facts may not be as solid as was once thought. And you simply dismissed my criticism of the attempt to "hide the decline", but you gave no reasoned defense. That is understandable given it appears to be indefensible.
I know how it sometimes seems hard to believe that your opponents can be so unreasonable. It starts to look like they are not being honest. Some oil company shills probably aren't. But I fully believe that there are many skeptics, even ones that have looked deeply into the evidence, who truly do not believe there is cause for alarm. You probably know that people can have an amazing ability to convince themselves of something. Some people also find it very painful to admit they were wrong, even to themselves. Unless the evidence against them is massively undeniable, they will not change their mind. And often, even if the evidence IS massively undeniable, they will not admit it. This cuts both ways of course. Back when we didn't know how much hiding was going on, many people adopted a conclusion, and are very reluctant to admit a mistake. It's especially hard for them to back off their conclusion because the evidence against the alarmist case is nowhere near overwhelming.
I don't think it matters anyway, because if the alarmists turn out to be right, there are a variety of relatively inexpensive ways to shade the planet and reliably bring the temperature under control. The really bad worst case scenarios are of negligible likelihood. It is impossible with available funds, and not an optimum allocation of resources, to spend trillions of dollars to prevent every disaster for which there is a tiny possibility. Those funds would probably be better spent preventing wars, plagues, cancer, poverty, or other things.