The scientific method – How NOT to do it

We have 25 or so years 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.
…
I also don’t see why I should help people I don’t want to work with and who spend most of their time critisising me.

A instant classic over at Climate Audit about the long running theme about Phil Jones obstructions towards Steve McIntyre's access to data, who wants to replicate his research – with new findings from the 2011 ClimateGate release about the lopsided behavior of a reporter from Nature!

Why won’t Jones give McIntyre the data?
Jones says that he tried to help when he first received data requests from McIntyre back in 2002, but says that he soon became inundated with requests that he could not fulfill, or that he did not have the time to respond to.

This claim was a total fabrication. After my (successful) 2002 request, I had no further contact with Jones until 2004, when I requested some unavailable data used in Jones et al 1998 (a legitimate, unobtrusive and successful request.) In the Climategate correspondence between Jones and Heffernan (thus far), Jones himself did not advance the “inundation” legend. Perhaps Jones himself introduced the legend in a presently unavailable email or in a telephone interview and the legend was uncritically accepted by Heffernan. It also seems possible that Heffernan herself contributed to the development of an explanation of Jones’ conduct that was more dignified than Jones’ petulance. Although there wasn’t a shred of evidence for Heffernan’s “inundation” story, it quickly became a widely accepted legend in the climate “community”.