Unfortunately, this link does not include the raw CRU data which is at the heart of the debate. It is a repost of old data, which you can figure out by reading the comments section of this post (<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-the-data/" rel="nofollow">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres...</a>).<p>This is disappointing. The University of East Anglia keeps talking about needing "permission" from national metrological service partners before releasing the data, but that should have been obtained before the first publication appeared. You couldn't pull this secret data thing in genomics, for example.<p>Overall this appears to be an attempt at damage control, to get the issue out of the news. Yet those other "5%" of stations are critical for establishing the <i>global</i> trend. They should not have published without them.<p><a href="http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=17333&channel=0&title=University+to+publish+all+climate+data" rel="nofollow">http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=17333&channel...</a><p>Quote:<p>The university has confirmed it will make all the data accessible as soon as it us released from a range of non-publication agreements, publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre.<p>"We are grateful for the necessary support of the Met Office in requesting the permissions for releasing the information but understand that responses may take several months and that some countries may refuse permission due to the economic value of the data," continued Professor Davies.<p>"The remaining data, to be published when permissions are given, generally cover areas of the world where there are fewer data collection stations."