http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/5/9/the-yamal-deception.html

Years of stonewalling but data needs to be freed….

I can confirm that the authors have agreed to provide the majority of the data by the end of the year. They hope to provide the remainder in (hopefully) early 2009.

It has not been straightforward as the data come from a range of sources, each of which required individual negotiation.

See http://publishing.royalsociety.org/index.cfm?page=1595 , section 6

Cliff

Your quoted text

As a condition of acceptance authors agree to honour any reasonable request by other researchers for materials, methods, or data necessary to verify the conclusion of the article.

Supplementary data up to 10Mb is placed on the Society’s website free of charge and is publicly accessible. Large datasets must be deposited in a recognised public domain database by the author prior to submission. The accession number should be provided for inclusion in the published article

from

http://publishing.royalsociety.org/index.cfm?page=1684#question10

is not found on that page. Have they amended their official policy since your request?

When Proceedings of the Royal Society A published ‘Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature’ by Lockwood and Frohlich – partly in response to TGGWS, apparently – its press release billed the paper as “The truth about global warming!”, claiming that “the sun is not a factor in recent climate change!” (Their exclamation marks.)

We have covered a number of stories relating to the Royal Society and its associates’ roles in climate change debates at Climate Resistance. I hope they are of interest.

What baffles us is that in contrast to the spirit of the Royal Society’s motto (as commenters here have already observed) the RS seems to be establishing itself as a kind of custodian of the facts. Through reinventing itself as such, it then rules on what is or isn’t a fact.

So worried are they, about the possibility of dialogue, that the discussion moves away from the facts, to the facts about facts, and facts about the rebellious presentation of facts. At this point, senior associates of the Royal Society do not seem to be against making things up themselves, especially if it gives them a chance to undermine the credibility of ‘deniers’.

Best wishes