The argument providing open data would waste the time of researchers, because most people wouldn't know how to use the data, and would require support, are analogous to newbies showing up at free software repositories and wasting the time of hackers by demanding support. This was dealt with by ignoring clueless questions on mailing lists and by building a community infrastructure that enabled contributions at every level. Underlying all that was a desire amongst the free software community to increase mindshare and the use of its products.

Most forms of scientific enterprise are closed clubs with tightly controlled entry with no such desire. This might be acceptable with endeavours that are not of general interest, but is hardly desirable with research of overarching interest such as climatology.

It is said that "science is not a democracy"; true, the skills to participate fully are not shared by everyone. But if knowledge is not made public (and every intermediate step along the path that led to its existence) then humanity departs towards some sort of elitist technofascism, which can only end badly.