I believe apache is capable of handling 5000 requests per year with very little human intervention.
The CRU folks actively avoided going that route. They avoided putting data on a public ftp site because they didn't want people they disliked to download it.
Apache will not answer questions about the data or code. What do you think happens when FOI requests can't make sense of the data/code researchers give them? Either the researchers have to answer questions OR they will be accused of deliberately obfuscating their results. It is a no win situation.
Of course it's a win. They can say "look, it's all there, not our fault you can't understand it." They could even behave like scientists and answer reasonable questions about their work [1].
Answering Frequently Asked Questions with little human interaction is actually a solved problem.
Your arguments might carry some weight if they were flooded with an unreasonable number of FOI requests. Or if they were flooded with a large number of unreasonable and not-repeated questions. None of that actually happened. All that happened is that a few critics asked for the data and they conspired to hide it.
[1] Last month a guy from Princeton emailed me asking for help using code he downloaded from my website. Instead of conspiring to hide it, I emailed him a more recent version of the code told him what to tweak. I'm not even a professional scientist anymore.
Seriously, what more would you want in the way of proof? Videotape of Mann/Jones writing the email? A brain scan showing they weren't joking? I'm beginning to have doubts that you are arguing in good faith.
Quote from Phil Jones: “We have 25 years or so 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?”
Comments
I believe apache is capable of handling 5000 requests per year with very little human intervention.
The CRU folks actively avoided going that route. They avoided putting data on a public ftp site because they didn't want people they disliked to download it.
http://junkscience.com/FOIA/mail/1107454306.txt
Apache will not answer questions about the data or code. What do you think happens when FOI requests can't make sense of the data/code researchers give them? Either the researchers have to answer questions OR they will be accused of deliberately obfuscating their results. It is a no win situation.
Of course it's a win. They can say "look, it's all there, not our fault you can't understand it." They could even behave like scientists and answer reasonable questions about their work [1].
Answering Frequently Asked Questions with little human interaction is actually a solved problem.
Your arguments might carry some weight if they were flooded with an unreasonable number of FOI requests. Or if they were flooded with a large number of unreasonable and not-repeated questions. None of that actually happened. All that happened is that a few critics asked for the data and they conspired to hide it.
[1] Last month a guy from Princeton emailed me asking for help using code he downloaded from my website. Instead of conspiring to hide it, I emailed him a more recent version of the code told him what to tweak. I'm not even a professional scientist anymore.
they conspired to hide it
This is a flat out lie. The data is publicly available.
The fact that data is publicly available from other sources does not change the fact that the CRU conspired to hide their data set.
The conspiracy is proven conclusively by the hacked emails. The email linked here is part of the conspiracy: http://junkscience.com/FOIA/mail/1107454306.txt
Seriously, what more would you want in the way of proof? Videotape of Mann/Jones writing the email? A brain scan showing they weren't joking? I'm beginning to have doubts that you are arguing in good faith.
Quote from Phil Jones: “We have 25 years or so 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?”
Maybe "conspired to hide it" is too nuanced.