What I don't get is why some of these climate scientists have been so antagonistic to those like Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre who question the data and simply ask for the data sets to be made public. To the credit of RealClimate they seem to be acknowledging the need for greater transparency that would allay some of the allegations of collusion.

What is a bit troubling though is RealClimate could be interpreted as defending the status quo and the monopoly on data in their response to comments. They seem to suggest we should simply accept the studies if they are peer reviewed. They create something of a straw man in saying that there is no evidence of a global conspiracy (I'm really not sure how many serious people think that one really exists nor is it necessary to believe that there is one in order to question the data and the policy responses being crafted).

They also don't address the allegation of whether some of these scientists have started with the conclusions and searched for data to show that it exists - particularly given some of the substance in some of these emails. Surely, given how heated and politicized the debate has become there should be some acknowledgment that there could be confirmation bias. Is (more) empiricism too much to ask for?