It looks like the Kiwis have been manipulating the climate data as well. I wonder how much of this is copycat crime — if you’re getting dramatically different results than the “official” ones being funded in East Anglia by IPCC, how much pressure is there to make them conform?
[Update a few minutes later]
I like this:
“There’s been a whole lot of work behind this in terms of things like having overlaps between particular stations when they’ve moved. There’s a whole methodology, internationally accepted, where you actually work out how to correct for these sorts of site changes and so on.”
Why is that I’m starting to think that the “internationally accepted” methodology is to “correct for these site changes” to massage the data to make it appear that the planet has been warming more than it has?
[Update a few minutes later]
It’s interesting that whenever the data is “adjusted,” it somehow always results in a plot that shows warming, rather than cooling. It’s interesting in exactly the same way that whenever the MSM gets a story wrong, it somehow reflects badly on Republicans and Conservatives. Just a coincidence in both cases, I’m sure.
[Update a few minutes later]
More over at Watt’s place.
Yeah, it’s kind of like how there’s never any major election vote counting errors in FAVOR of the Republican candidate.
it’s always three thousand, five thousand, twenty thousand Republican votes incorrectly discounted or not counted at all.
And then the Democrats go on to anounce that there’s absolutely no reason whatsoever to worry about election fraud, and that asking voters to prove they actually aren’t voting fraudulently is somehow racist.
Only in climate science could the “internationally accepted” procedure for using a new instrument in a new location proceed with a lot of hand-waving and hot air instead of a direct cross-calibration of the two instruments.
But… but.. such direct cross-calibration could take years! We’ve only got a few years left to Save The Planet™!! (And to keep the grant money flowing) Besides, we already know what we want that instrument to show, so why do any more work than you have to?
During the Cold War, one of the most important numbers that had to be estimated was: How many tanks does the Warsaw Pact have?
Academic specialists came up with one number. The CIA came up with a substantially larger number. The professors attacked the CIA number in no uncertain terms — no honest person could even suggest so high a number. In today’s language, the science was settled, you’re as bad as Holocaust deniers.
Then the USSR signed an arms limitation treaty, which required them to reduce the number of tanks to an agreed-upon level, with the destruction of excess tanks to be monitored (“trust but verify”). This required them to tell us how many they had to start with, so we could confirm (agreed) = (starting) – (destroyed).
You guessed it. The real number was much higher than the CIA’s dishonestly high denier number. By about as much as the CIA’s number was higher than the honest, decent, settled-science academics’ number. The CIA was splitting the difference between what the facts told them and what the professors told them were the facts.
It’s interesting in exactly the same way that whenever the MSM gets a story wrong, it somehow reflects badly on Republicans and Conservatives. Just a coincidence in both cases, I’m sure.
Didn’t you know? Maxwell’s Demon is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat.
Considering that the sycophantic leftstream media call themselves “gatekeepers,” that’s actually about right, Roga.