However, do I see any mentions of specific requests for archived tree rings, coordinates of meteostations, raw temp data including their processing or suchlikes? No…

If I understand correctly, your comment pertains to:

Unique Materials: Authors must make Unique Materials (e.g., cloned DNAs; antibodies; bacterial, animal, or plant cells; viruses; and computer programs) promptly available on request by qualified researchers for their own use.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/abbreviations/f/ievseg.htm reads in part:
“i.e.
“I.e.” stands simply for “that is,” which written out fully in Latin is ‘id est’. “I.e.” is used in place of “in other words,” or “it/that is.” It specifies or makes more clear.

e.g.
“E.g.” means “for example” and comes from the Latin expression exempli gratia, “for the sake of an example,” with the noun exemplum in the genitive to go with gratia in the ablative. “E.g.” is used in expressions similar to “including,” when you are not intending to list everything that is being discussed.”

So, e.g. cannot be read to imply any limit to the list and therefore the policy statement can be read correctly without the paranthetical as:

“Unique Materials: Authors must make Unique Materials promptly available on request by qualified researchers for their own use.”

Any limitation to that blanket statement would have to be found in some other sentence.

If NSF simply did its job and ceased being co-opted by non-compliant scientists, most of the problems in paleoclimate would disappear instantly.

you may overestimate the science (and paleo) community. As you found with Jones data, scientists (who are not computer scientists) may simply fail to appreciate the problems with database integrity, and over-writing old data with new data- until they are ten years in and notice that their database is actually a pig’s ear of over-writes and non-overwrites. Once in that position, it can be very difficult to (a) own up that there is a problem (b) do something about it; grant authorities are unlikely to give you hundreds of thousands of $ because you have committed an elementary error.

I suspect Crowley’s problem of not having the original data, or not even knowing if you have the original data, is quite common, and not just in paleo.

All that you can do is shine light into dark and dusty corners, and reveal the horrors that lie therein. That is how GLP came about for pharmaceutical research, and is the basis for UK research council guidance now.
per

God help us if any of these scientists, like North, ever become real and elected politicians. They take obfuscation to a whole other level.

The PPT leads with an anti-Barton editorial from the Houston Chronicle and then as separate slides on both realclimate and climateaudit. ONe of his last slides is my letter post-NAS Panel to North asking for help getting data. (Not a single piece of data has been provided.)

Some of the points that North highlighted give a hugely misleading impression of data issues. For example, the NAS Panel was confronted by Hans von Storch condemning the Phil Jones refusal to identify data: We have 25 years invested in this, why should we let you see the data when your only objective is to find something wrong with it? Instead of this, North posted up a trivializing email exchange as follows:

John,
You don’t need to ask permission to get HadCRUT2v. It is sitting on our web site.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ . . .Cheers Phil

As to the problems with tree ring data, he used the following quote:

A considerable portion of tree ring data collected on all inhabited continents is freely available online (Grissino-Mayer and Fritts 1997)

Well, that’s true, but it doesn’t deal with the problem that important studies use unarchived data. It’s annoying and unfortunate that he mis-stated the issue.

His email to me said:

My suggestion (not really on the slides) is that when an agency awards a grant like some many of these we have talked about, there should be a negotiation as to what is to be saved and in what form. There needs to be some consideration for the costs, etc. But the bottom line is that these things need to be agreed upon before the money is awarded.

I find some of the emphasis on new policy to be frustrating. The US Global Change Research Program (which includes climate) already requires agencies to do ensure that data is archived – so there’s already a policy framework for climate without having to get involved in issues like biology, computers, all the problems that result from trying to develop a Napoleonic Code for data. I’d be content with a common law approach – case-by-case. If NSF simply did its job and ceased being co-opted by non-compliant scientists, most of the problems in paleoclimate would disappear instantly.

North said in his covering email that he’d said that the paleoclimate community was “shocked” to find themselves thrust into the limelight and “totally unprepared” for it. It’s funny – they didn’t seem to be shocked when they got awards from Scientific American or their results applied in Al Gore’s movie. What were they “unprepared for” – critical analysis of their results?