Some other quotable quotes from this article:

True openness requires data to be not only accessible, but also intelligible, assessable (who produced the data, what are their qualifications, do they have conflicts of interest?) and reusable. [IPCC, pls take note! -hro]
[...]
Too often, we scientists seek patterns in data that reflect our preconceived ideas. And when we do publish the data, we too frequently publish only those that support these ideas. This cherry-picking is bad practice and should stop. [Joelle Gergis, are you listening? -hro]
[...]
And above all, we need scientists to accept that publicly funded research is a public resource. [emphasis added -hro]

http://www.nature.com/news/open-your-minds-and-share-your-results-1.10895

No mention of “citizen scientists”, but he does specifically refer to Climategate, and expressly recognizes it as an important event:

We also need to be open towards fellow citizens. The massive impact of science on our collective and individual lives has decreased the willingness of many to accept the pronouncements of scientists unless they can verify the strength of the underlying evidence for themselves. The furore surrounding ‘Climategate’ — rooted in the resistance of climate scientists to accede to requests from members of the public for data underlying some of the claims of climate science — was in part a motivation for the Royal Society’s current report. It is vital that science is not seen to hide behind closed laboratory doors, but engages seriously with the public.

So, this discussion of “citizen scientist” vs. “scientist” seems all wrong. Who behaves in a way supporting the scientific method is a scientist. It might be relevant in some non-scientific discussions to use an adjective such as “unpaid” to describe a scientist, but for discussion of science itself such adjectives are irrelevant.

In fact the very use of such adjectives mark a discussion as non-science and likely political. I’d avoid such descriptive adjectives altogether.

I like ‘non-establishment scientist’ as an alternative to ‘citizen scientitst’. Craig Loehle makes some good points upthread about there being no qualification test when publishing in a journal. So why the distinction for the independent author? It’s because he doesn’t belong, isn’t a member of the established group.

I suggest ‘non-credentialed scientist’ or ‘non-academic.’ A lay inquirer can be in agreement with the establishment, so ‘non-establishment scientist’ only covers the skeptical inquirers (or alternate researchers). There are several areas other than climate science in which non-academics are doing inquiries.

Steve Garcia

http://www.pollere.net/CoDel.html

Key quote:
The ns-2 codel.cc reflects the code used to produce the results in the [authors'] ACM Queue paper.

It isn’t like studies aren’t done with specialists in various fields.

Was it – in the beginning – intentional? The agenda was certainly there from the moment the switch was made from approaching ice age to global warming. And probably before that; the ice age issue wasn’t sexy enough or flamboyant enough. Climate science was a backwater of science at the time.

So was it a case of them trying to draw attention to themselves? Did they foresee the money – and careerism – it would draw? Did Hansen and the early few have any idea of the monolith they were creating?

No, I wouldn’t think so. It is much more likely that they had grabbed a bull by the horns and did not know if it would ever take off like a rocket. And that is probably why it didn’t matter that they did the statistics themselves – who was going to really be paying attention anyway?

Then later on, the die had been cast. Do-it-yourself statistics was the ingrained approach.

Sooner or later a Michael Mann would take it too far.

Sooner or later a Steve M was going to inquire – and notice things.

Sooner or later they would have to circle the wagons.

Once the backwater had been given center stage “sooner” became now. It is sort of amazing the feces didn’t hit the fan earlier.

The hockey stick was that bridge too far.

Steve Garcia

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/5/4/wunsch-on-nature.html