Well, if a group has your original source data, they can try to reproduce your results and/or challenge your process. I gather that the results are not likely to stand up to scrutiny.
I concur, the only reason to destroy the original source data is if you know your work won't stand up to scrutiny and will discredit your work. Irony here is that now it isn't a matter of if there work would or wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, now it's a matter of ethics and they're clearly discrediting themselves by their severe lack of ethical behaviour.
It would be harder for the scientists to justify making it up to themselves. I assume none of them set out to do bad science when they started investigating climate.
Sorry I don't think this makes sense. Personally I'll just wait to see how the story unfolds.
This makes me glad again that there is some kind of legal system in most civilized countries. So many people seem to be ready to form a lynch mob at short notice.
If that were the case, there would be no need to delete it; the lawyers could decide whether the FOI request or the license won.
Of course, if it turns out that it was illegal for them to accept the data under that license in the first place, then it might be more understandable.
What if they simply felt they didn't have the time to deal with "the MMs", who would most likely not care about the law (also being from a completely different country). Newspapers tend to simply publish stuff they acquire, no matter if they came by it by legal means or not.
Not wanting to deal with the MMs does not imply guilty, just as not wanting to discuss moot points with creationists does not imply evolution theory is wrong. At some point maybe you decide your energy is better spent elsewhere.
Just playing devils advocate... I still feel there is too much context missing.
If a creationist wants access to your data you give it to them; you don't have to debate them, but there is no reason not to keep this data on your ftp...
...and if the FOI won you wouldn't be able to get data anymore.
Under that license, right.
I don't understand what you're getting at with your second paragraph.
What I mean is that if government documents are subject to FOI requests, then it seems possible that there's a law about accepting data under a license which would conflict with that. I don't know that there is, but it seems possible. That would be an understandable reason having no bearing on the climate debate to delete rather than provide the data.
