Think this is just a few sloppy emails, but the data itself is ok? Here is a clear case of fraud in the data coming from a bit of Sherlock Holmes work in the land of Oz. The sleuth goes through the real data and the adjustments to it by the ClimateGate Cabal. He looked at the raw data, and then the adjusted data, and figured out how severe the adjustment was. The first chart shows this, and below it are his comments.
YIKES! Before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century … but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. And the adjustment that they made was over two degrees per century … when those guys “adjust”, they don’t mess around.
He then went on to look closely at the specific thermometers and the adjustments made. Here is his second chart and comments (emphasis in color added):
Yikes again, double yikes! What on earth justifies that adjustment? How can they do that? We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? They’ve just added a huge artificial totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! Now it looks like the IPCC diagram in Figure 1, all right … but a six degree per century trend? And in the shape of a regular stepped pyramid climbing to heaven? What’s up with that?
Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.
One thing is clear from this. People who say that “Climategate was only about scientists behaving badly, but the data is OK” are wrong. At least one part of the data is bad, too. The Smoking Gun for that statement is at Darwin Zero.
The raw data from this area across multiple thermometers showed a consistent story of NO WARMING. There was no need to make those adjustments other than fitting into the pre-conceived case for Global Warming. The Climate Sleuths are progressively looking at such cases across the whole disgraceful data set. You can read more in my prior post, where they deconstruct Northern Europe to show the baseless adjustments there simply designed to fit the story, not the facts.
UPDATE 12/13: The Economist tries to rebut this work, and the author comes back and shows how their arguments were specious: The Economist claimed that the upwards adjustments were due to a change in a thermometer, but the author shows that none of the adjustments had anything to do with that, nor were due to a purported dramatic temperature anomaly 1941, because there was no such event.
You can read this failed resurrection along with an AP story today that says they read the emails and found that they do not suggest the data itself is faked; but it turns out the AP author was part of the offensive email traffic and he appears to be in on the scam. He never reported on the negative side of the story, nor the undue pressure brought against skeptics, even after he had been emailed on these topics. At the very least he should be off this story due to a conflict of interest.
We are now seeing the complicit media participate in the cover up. Sad, especially when a quality magazine like The Economist crosses the line like this.