Neither should one be surprised at the fact that raw data is guarded very hawkishly, which shouldn't be surprising either.
Why? If the results will be as destructive as people are claiming, why can't they show us the data that supports it (or doesn't, as the case may be)?
What? But they do! Have you ever read scientific studies? They're charts filled with numbers - not all numbers the study gave, the ones that are actually valuable to said study.
More about this entire datastuff: Sometimes the data is not free to distribute, the data is available commercially, or they are preparing to analyze the data and publish new results. (Data is, still, often freely released when considered appropriate.)
And beyond that, if one has a problem with results they shouldn't be dependant on the actual raw data, but the methods of collecting it and the analysis (unless you suspect the data is incorrect, in which case read the following).
Let's discuss an example:
I make a study that involves three years of sitting on the top of a volcano. I make it with my own money. I get results, make a study out of them and publish the data. I describe
how I collected the data,
what I did with it and what my
conclusions are. I present the necessary information for all of this. For reviewing the basis of my claims, no actual data is required outside the necessary I give (unless criticized for it, why would you need the eye colour for estimating the reproductive success of paratisized vs. non-paratisized trout). Methods, results, do the numbers match. I still have the data sheets I collected, but the methods and results of this one particular study are freely available. This particular data I collected is still mine and, unless otherwise necessary, I am under no obligation to hand it out if it meant possible destruction of my entire scientific career. You want similar data? You replicate the test, thus finding out if my methods were rigorous enough.
Now, if my study finds out that there are Cthulhus flying around in volcanoes, one can simply review my results by replicating the study -
which is the entire point of science. If they don't find out Cthulhus in volcanoes, my entire study becomes suspect. I'll be dragged in the sidelines of science. If they do, well, good for me and them! I reanalyze this data and publish some stuff out of it - it is a huge datamine, nothing else. When I have nothing more to give I can release the entire raw data under my discretion.
In science, you don't have to have the entirety of raw data to be able to either estimate the validity of claims or, more importantly, be able to test the claims yourself. That's kinda the point. Replicating the study, not copying the raw data.
TL;DR version: If you suspect a study is faulty, you either find an obvious error in the methods or you replicate the test. Actually, since all you are trying to do is to prove the dominant hypothesis faulty, pretty much all you will be doing is replicating the test, over and over again, not demanding someone else funding and doing your job for you. Replication is the key here. It's one of the cornerstones of science.
Think about of it like this: are you trying to replicate the data and results themselves, or are you trying to replicate the test to see if the data and results fit the previous test?
