You both proffered thorough posts on Prometheus, listing and summarizing why the debate matters. In now re-reading the thread (and the spawned follow-up threads), your topic response still stands with little erosion.

With reluctance of calling it xenophobia, one wonders if there is USA vs elsewhere dynamic of the mostly stable ~75/25% populace believing/disbelieving in AGW since the late 90s — for instance, what is Canada’s AGW poll tracking history that allowed Kyoto and other related policy to be enacted. Same question of the other Kyoto signatories?

(I can’t link directly to the comment, but it is dated Nov 24 10:56am)

I just posted the following to RC:

“Re: 40, Eric

“[Response:Err, um, I hope this isn't a redredging of the "hockey stick" debate, because all of the data have always been available... -- eric]”

To whom is all the data available? Is it available to you? Is it available to me? Is it available to the general public?”

Technically, it was available – to Mann.

I think that Jones, Mann, et al are carefully parsing their words to suit their situation. Although it may be true that “the” data is available, this is not the issue, it never has been the issue and he certainly knows this.

“His” data and methodology are the issues. Jones has have never made these publically available in spite of his countless promises to post it somewhere.

There is an article from yesterday stating that the “…new Council for Science and Technology has recommended pooling data to deliver better targeted public services and improve policymaking.” This UK article stated that “Information is frequently shared between medical researchers and the private sector.” Even though data is routinely shared in the UK by medical and other researchers, it would appear that climate science is in a rather unique position whose practitioners keep their data secret.