There actually are independent scientists, and as the CRU emails show, they have been disparaged and shut up at every possible point.

Yes, because as we all know, a single case study always generalizes to the whole. I think it's ridiculous that people who are criticizing science are being so unscientific themselves.

As someone who has worked a great deal on climate change issues, I want to respect skepticism in the scientific process because it *usually* is very healthy. In this case though, so much of the skepticism is fueled by political bias that I believe it's become, for the most part, unhealthy for the science. That said, I understand your criticism of the CRU emails. It made me mad too, but it has been blown out of proportion. If you look at the IPCC reports, many of the studies the CRU scientists were criticizing were actually included. These guys had some power in the discourse, but not as much as people attribute to them.

So, I would like to add something here. I think that a blanket release of the raw data could be problematic, but am for a data release. Even as someone with a degree that covers environmental sciences, economics, and statistics, I am not qualified to make a true analysis of this data and neither are 99% of the people who would attempt it, then claim one thing or the other. However, I am in support of the release of the data. Withholding data understandably engenders mistrust and releasing it would help, but I think that it should be released to a broad group of people who are agreed to have enough expertise to analyze the data.

This isn't to create some elite walled garden, but to give the science and data the respect they need in order to tell us anything. I feel like if the release was made to a broad enough group, and specifically a group of people with no history of weighing in on climate change, it should quell a lot of concerns about who is allowed to interpret the data.

Finally, thanks for making a real post with genuine concerns about the data instead of simply screaming hysteria like so many have on this data release without attempting to understand the context of the release.

Yes, so you allow free internet usage... up to a point, or for certain things. Then you charge. Doesn't that sound like any reasonable plan? Instead...

Solution: Don't buy one. It's not like these are life and death matters here where you can somehow morally justify stealing something.

Here, read this: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Thanks

quoting gp: "At least there's a benefit for shareholders in the scary corporation scenario."

S/he suggested that nothing beneficial comes from government. I listed some benefits of government. I've known plenty of people who've forgotten those. I said nothing about government not screwing anything up.