The Associated Press: PROMISES, PROMISES: A closed meeting on openness

WASHINGTON — It's hardly the image of transparency the Obama administration wants to project: A workshop on government openness is closed to the public.
...
"The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails," Obama told government offices on his first full day as president. "The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears."

25, Not 2500 | Climate Skeptic

...But since I keep getting the “2500″ scientists number thrown at me by alarmists, I am starting to believe the number is closer to 25, not 2500. Sure there are many folks who have participated in work that has become a part of the IPCC, but it is old news that though those folks are counted as believers, many reject key aspects of the IPCC findings. It is becoming increasingly clear than when people talk about the consensus, it is a position being espoused and communicated and driven by a handful of folks over and over in different outlets. The same folks were advisors on Gore’s movie and run Realclimate and are advisors of the President and were leaders of the IPCC process and were featured in many of the CRU emails.

Example #2 Of Work That Needs To Be Replicated: Dendroclimatology | Climate Skeptic

For anyone who has paid attention, the dendroclimatology field has been rife with bad practices for years - cherry picking data sets, hiding modern data that shows “the wrong answer,” using bizarre statistical approaches, flipping data sets upside down, and utter resistance to data requests and any attempts at replication. Most of the really damning CRU emails are about various dendroclimatology studies, and Keith Briffa, lead author of this section of the last IPCC report, is right in the middle of it all.

Can Global Warming Predictions be Tested with Observations of the Real Climate System? « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

In any event, I believe that the scientific community’s confidence that climate change is now mostly human-caused is seriously misplaced. It is time for an independent review of climate modeling, with experts from other physical (and even engineering) disciplines where computer models are widely used. The importance of the issue demands nothing less.

Furthermore, the computer codes for the climate models now being used by the IPCC should be made available to other researchers for independent testing and experimentation. The Data Quality Act for U.S.-supported models already requires this, but this law is being largely ignored.