I attempted to post a comment up at realclimate in response to the following:
#Re: response to #63:
"And of course once the data is published, others are free to reinterpret it and/or use it in another way."
It seems that one good step would be for journals to require public archiving of all primary data & methods as a condition of publication. Would you support this?
Comment by Armand MacMurray “¢’¬? 2 Oct 2005 @ 4:33 am
I sent in the following comment using my own name and email address:
Re #65: There is a great deal of unarchived data pertaining to multiproxy studies e.g. a list of the 387 sites in Briffa et al  (which may or may not be archived); measurement data for many sites used in Esper et al ; data versions used in Mann and Jones ; methods of Mann and Jones ; data as used in Crowley and Lowery  or data citations for the versions used; measurement data for many Jacoby sites studied in the last 10 years except Mongolia; sample data for Thompson’s ice cores, etc. etc. Sometimes data is archived in password protected sites like SO&P. Will you join in seeking to improve standards of data archiving implemented by journals such as Nature and Science and in studies funded by NSF?
This was submitted early this morning and was not posted today, although their inbox has been cleared and many comments posted. Indeed, Gavin Schmidt added this comment to post #65, which was not in it this morning:
[Response: Yes. In paleoclimate research, I think that once a time series is published, it should be made available at one of the standard archives. This almost always happens with new papers now, though there are a few exceptions, mostly from older papers that were published prior to universal web access. The methods description just needs to be enough so that some else can work out what was done. …. – gavin]
You wonder how they can say these things with a straight face.
As to the censorship of my comment, they really are pathetic. Gavin Schmidt has posted here in the past and is welcome to post here in the future.