Making a case for “Open Source” climate change

As I understand, and please correct me if I’m wrong, but the CRU researchers apparently refused to share the underlying raw data that was the basis of their research. Is that so? If so, is there a scientifically acceptable justification for this refusal, especially when the topic is as important as this one?

My inclination would be to say that data should nearly always be shared. If you share your data, this lets others check the conclusions you draw from the data, as well as verifying the accuracy of the data against other available sources. They might disprove your arguments, or lead you to improve your arguments, or, if they reproduce your results, they might help prove the validity of your arguments. But in either case, science progresses better, and the decisions made based on the science are more reliable, than if you keep the data secret.

You didn’t ask this question, but the nearly universal experience among scientists is that when someone claims that a particular theory is “settled science”, it is always for a political purpose and to discourage independent investigation.