The Royal Meterological Society - an appalling conclusion
Do you see the appalling conclusion that can be drawn from a paragraph in How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus from the Wall Street Journal?
"Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory complained that the Royal Meteorological Society (RMS) was now requiring authors to provide actual copies of the actual data that was used in published papers. He wrote to Phil Jones on March 19, 2009, that "If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available—raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations—I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals."
Apparently burned by scientists whose papers it had published, only to discover they lacked or had falsified data, the Royal Meterological Society began insisting on seeing the data and calculations behind the papers.
This makes eminent sense, but it is also an admission that the RMS had found science being corrupted. It could no longer depend on the word of scientists. After recent revelations of climate data manipulation, climate data omission and climate data disappearance, I can see why, but it is an appalling state of affairs.
According to Wikipedia, the Royal Meteorological Society traces its origins back to April 3rd 1850 when the British Meteorological Society was formed as a society. The object was "the advancement and extension of meteorological science by determining the laws of climate and of meteorological phenomena in general". Along with James Glaisher, John Drew, Edward Joseph Lowe, The Revd Joseph Bancroft Reade, and Samuel Charles Whitbread, Dr John Lee, an astronomer, of Hartwell House, near Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, founded the British Meteorological Society in the library of his house . Along with 74 others, the famous meteorologist Luke Howard joined the original 15 members of the Society at its first ordinary meeting on May 7th 1850. As of 2008, the RMS had more than 3,000 members worldwide.