The "Scientific Method" as not applied to Climate Change research at the CRU at UEA

Here's part of an email from someone at the CRU

"Subject: Re: WMO non respondo
… Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. …
Cheers Phil"

Here is a flowchart for the "Scientific Method"...

Maybe someone could explain how "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. …" fits in with "Analyze results - Draw Conclusion"...

Here are some extracts from Wikipedia's guide to the Scientific Method as a reminder to those of you who have forgotten their science O'levels:

"the cycle of formulating hypotheses, testing and analyzing the results, and formulating new hypotheses, will resemble the cycle described below."

"Each element of a scientific method is subject to peer review for possible mistakes."

"A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:[33]

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

The iterative cycle inherent in this step-by-step methodology goes from point 3 to 6 back to 3 again."

You can read far more about this matter and more at .