The position by skeptics is and has been that Jones, Mann et al may have been playing
fast and loose with (taxpayer funded) data, and disallowing examination thereof (by McIntyre or others) is
counter to not only the premise of scientific replication, but also what rightfully belongs in the public domain (i.e. we
pay for it, it's ours.)
If deciding among «improving the service at the
counter so that people don't have to stand there three or four hours, or improving the working conditions of the people behind the
counter, or having more judges to get the cases to go
faster... as opposed to the fibre optics that you have to do in order to let the public fully in the door — it's not going to be a really challenging decision what you're going to
pay for,» she said.