If I misread your comment, please accept my apology. I must admit that I responded in the way I did partially because of this statement that you made a couple o

If I misread your comment, please accept my apology. I must admit that I responded in the way I did partially because of this statement that you made a couple of hours ago, and I assumed that the comment I replied to was making a similar case: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=952651 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=952651 Sure, and if researchers are being forced to draw the line higher than usual due to external pressure from highly funded deniers, whose fault is that? EDIT: Besides, if we define the adversary to be somebody making legitimate critical analyses of your data and models and showing up flaws in them, isn't dealing with that meant to be part of a scientists job? How different is it in practice to defending your work against criticism from other, supposedly more respectable, scientists? It's ridiculous to claim that a lack of resources is a valid reason for intentionally hiding data from people with the skill to perform an adversarial analysis on it. If a scientist can't defend his results against Steve McIntyre, it means his results are indefensible. The person doesn't matter; the data, and its integrity, do.