Concerns have been raised about the transparency and reliability of climate data, drawing parallels to reforms in other fields such as finance and medicine that emphasize rigorous auditing and public disclosure. Dr. David Evans, a former Australian government consultant who helped develop carbon accounting software for land use, has voiced skepticism about the current state of climate datasets and called for greater openness.

Evans highlights several issues undermining confidence in climate science data. He points to frequent retrospective adjustments to temperature records, sometimes made multiple times and decades after the original data collection. The rationale behind these changes is often described only vaguely, and the procedures remain largely undisclosed. Moreover, raw data, processing methods, and software used to generate final climate datasets are not fully accessible to the public or independent researchers, limiting replicability.

According to Evans, this lack of transparency contrasts sharply with standards in the financial sector, where publicly listed companies must have their accounts audited regularly, and the medical field, which now requires that raw data from drug trials be publicly available to enable independent verification before government approval. These practices have helped restore trust in both realms. He argues that scientific integrity depends on being able to replicate results, stating that climate datasets should be reproducible from the original raw data using documented methods and software.

Evans expresses concern that updated climate data increasingly align with the theory that carbon dioxide drives global warming, suggesting this pattern may indicate bias or methodological issues. He notes that genuine technical errors would be expected to deviate from the theory as often as they support it. This consistent trend raises questions since the full data processing workflows remain confidential.

The principle that knowledge must be verifiable through replication, Evans notes, is central to the scientific method and is reflected in the Royal Society's motto, “nullius in verba” (“take nobody’s word for it”). He asserts that political or reputational factors should not influence scientific conclusions and that trust alone is insufficient in matters of public importance such as temperature trends and climate change assessments.

Evans recommends implementing a formal auditing process for climate data that can independently reproduce datasets from raw inputs. He suggests that climate scientists should welcome such scrutiny, as it would confirm the validity of their methods and findings if they are sound. While emphasizing that his critique is not an indictment of individual scientists’ integrity or expertise, he insists on the need for full transparency to strengthen public and scientific trust in climate research going forward.