Thanks for doing the legwork to find and provide that; while the first cite is a narrow case, the second looks great. > It is not standard practice in climate

Thanks for doing the legwork to find and provide that; while the first cite is a narrow case, the second looks great. > It is not standard practice in climate science and many other fields ... I think this statement supports the idea that the actions of climate scientists are not a conspiracy, but normal practice in scientific research. I've read similar things in many other contexts. On principle, I think all scientific data (and papers) should be open and free. In practice, I would need to know far more about the costs, value, and implications before demanding it. On a practical level, very, very few would have the knowledge, skill, resources (software, etc.), time, and motivation to make use of the data. Very few outside any particular field even read that field's papers, much less try to work with the data. Likely, anyone in the general public trying to do so would interfere with the 'signal' of discourse by creating only noise - the open data could hurt more than help. If it costs a lot to produce the data, it's very possible that most of that expense would be a waste. OTOH, sometimes that noise and cost is the price of democracy.