How long has it been since you have been to a conference? The main issues in the peer-reviewed literature, since 2007, has favored the skeptics. I'm talking the climate sensitivity paper by Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab, the aerosol and climate sensitivity papers by Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National Lab, the paper by Roy Spencer on a new negative feedback in the tropics in 2007 and a host of others. Perhaps most important is the finding by Josh Willis of JPL that Ocean Heat Content has not gone up since 2004. If OHC is not rising, what is the radiative imbalance in watts/sq meter?

You are wrong. Steve McIntyre may not have a degree in climate science but he has published in the peer-reviewed literature and that is the real test if someone is a scientist or not. McIntyre is well-trained in statistics (I believe he studied at Cambridge or Oxford). More importantly, McIntyre is prolific and has attracted and trained a group of well-qualified statisticians who work with him. Many of them have their own blogs now. If you have not read ClimateAudit, you need to.

Bullspittle. Do you understand that scientific journals such as those published by AGU have a policy of requiring authors to archive their datasets, methods and code? See the references cited at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_data_archiving

Research is not science until it can be replicated.

The example of pharmaceutical research is different because it involves patient's privacy rights and the fact the company is attempting to protect certain trade secrets. These do not apply in climate science.

You have your facts backward. RealClimate is a blog run by a PR firm. Yes, it has people with science degrees writing for it, but it is not a real science blog because it censors comments it does not have an answer for. ClimateAudit and WattsUpWithThat have both won Science Blog of the Year awards. You need to read them more often.

Scientific work is done with sensitive data. But climate data is not sensitive data. No valid reason exists to shelter it or keep it from scrutiny. The scientific method requires that results be confirmed by people who challenge your conclusions, not just by people who agree with you. The product put out by the CRU is not science. The leak by the mole was a victory for science and the scientific method.

Your note indicates you understand research has to be replicated to be science. This is very good step in the right direction. Do you also understand that you cannot just turn the data over to those who agree with you? People who disagree with your conclusions have to have access to the data, otherwise it is just pseudoscience.

It amazes me you think statisticians do not know what to do with the data. If Steve McIntyre or Matt Briggs or lucia or UC or Jean S or jeff id or a host of others had the data, they would be able to analyze it in many different ways. Almost certainly they would find errors in the way the data was massaged or adjusted. Have you ever bothered to read ClimateAudit website by Steve McIntyre? This whole thing reminds me of the testimony Dr. Richard Lindzen gave before Congress. He was decrying the concept of "consensus" in climate science. He pointed out that the better students never went into climate science. They went into mathematics or physics or computer science. The students who could not cut the mustard in the more competitive fields went into climate. This explains why the statisticians and people from other fields are getting involved in climate to fix all of the errors by the climate scientists. As long as data, methods and code are withheld, there will be climate skeptics.

You are right to be suspicious, especially when you learn more about the shenanigans of some of the alarmist climate researchers. One professor who has co-authored papers with Phil Jones of CRU is up on academic misconduct and fraud charges brought by Doug Keenan. See http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm See also the English Translation of the article titled "Kyoto Protocol Based on Flawed Statistics" found at http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf