One example can't be extended to all of 'em, logic fail. Please try again.
Try climateaudit.org or http://bishophill.squarespace.com/ in general.
Neither is in the pay of anyone, and have links to many, many more like themselves that are merely studying the science. This issue is big and important enough that it should be able to stand up in the full light of day.
Or talk to Judith Curry, one of the few climate scientists that are willing to point out the flaws in the current process, e.g. here: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/04/squeaky-clean.html?showComment=1271462868897#c1343322932444511542
So when 'believers' call someone at all skeptical of their beliefs a 'climate change denier' and say they're funded by Big Oil and Big Energy, that's also libel, right?
Nice straw man. The scientists never made the defense that they were using the data for a similar analysis that the mathematician (PhD) wanted to perform. If they had simply said they were working on a paper with the data set, and would share the data once they had their paper accepted, everyone would have been happy! Or they could have collaborated, and gotten another paper out of the deal!
Instead, they flat out, over a period of years, denied him the information. While sharing it with other scientists (Mann) in the community. While ignoring the laws stating they had to share the information.
You're the ignorant fucking idiot here, not the person making the request.
The request was made back in 2007.
Mann et. al., in 2008, used Oak ring reconstructions, including several from this same group, freely for temperature reconstruction.
The paper saying the Oak rings don't correlate with temperature came out in 2009. Nary a peep that the Mann '08 paper was at all flawed as result!
So they not only shared data with some groups and not others, the request was relevant and would have remained relevant if responded to in a timely manner. The researchers did not even bother to reply that they were actively analyzing the same issues he wanted to examine, they just flat-out refused. If they had replied that they are planning on publishing a paper on the same topic, and given a time-line to share their data, this would have been a non-issue.
fortune: cpu time/usefulness ratio too high -- core dumped.