http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ndp019.html#tempdata

There also links to a good many data files. Although I did not see any that indicated raw data. Also note the site has not been updated since May 2008 and the data files apparently only run through 2006. They must still be working on those to get a good result.

I’d also like to attach the following paragraph – which made me laugh and wince at the same time (this data is so adjusted it would seem impossible to get anything real out of it):

===============================
Applying the Time of Observation adjustment (black line) resulted in approximately a 0.3F warming from the late 1960′s to the 1990′s. The shift from Cotton Region Shelters to the Maximum/Minimum Thermometer System in the mid-1980′s is clearly evident in the difference between the TOBS and the MMTS time series (red line). This adjustment created a small warming in the US annual time series during the mid to late 1980′s. Application of the Station History Adjustment Procedure (yellow line) resulted in an average increase in US temperatures, especially from 1950 to 1980. During this time, many sites were relocated from city locations to airports and from roof tops to grassy areas. This often resulted in cooler readings than were observed at the previous sites. When adjustments were applied to correct for these artificial changes, average US temperature anomalies were cooler in the first half of the 20th century and effectively warmed throughout the later half. Filling in missing data (blue line) produced cooler temperatures prior to 1915. Adjustments to account for warming due to the effects of urbanization (purple line) cooled the time series an average of 0.1F throughout the period of record.
====================

Having the raw data would be a good start, however there are at least a couple of facts still to consider.
- Some of the weather stations were (and still may be) near artificial heat sources.
- I understand when the USSR fell apart there were periods where that data was not available, thus skewing the average global numbers warmer.

Mark Twain noted there were 3 kinds of lies:
white, damn, and statistics.

Example: Prague weather history and then select ALL.

I rather think that the theory of global warming is correct, but I am open to the criticism of the theory. However weather science is not my discipline so for me that is not a vital question – vital academically – whether the theory is correct or not. However for many people it is vital – academically, professionally, politically or monetarily.
Yes, the submission to scientific journal would be nice. But there is one question – who are the people doing peer review? If they have staked their reputation on the correctness of theory of global warming they may reject the submitted article, even if all the data and calculations in the article are right. They might object to the conclusion. Science is littered by initial rejections of theories which contradicted majority view, particularly if the author was from another area of science.
So it is difficult to say who is correct, particularly if the raw data and algorithm used by original scientists is now secret.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6811

Kinda neat; citing your own work in a circular fashion, like that.

Anyone anywhere who has ever functioned in an oversight role — and particularly people who have functioned in both an oversight as well as an overseen role — understands that refusal to provide data always indicates deception, incompetence, or both — and never indicates anything else.

How about sloppiness? Most people over at CA tend to think that in most cases it’s that their data and code, that backs up their reports that these various government agencies pay six figures for, are ratsnests that would embarrass a junior high programming student.

The exception is Mann. He can’t be embarrassed, because he’s shameless.

Anyone anywhere who has ever functioned in an oversight role — and particularly people who have functioned in both an oversight as well as an overseen role — understands that refusal to provide data always indicates deception, incompetence, or both — and never indicates anything else. Additionally, it is always true that following the money leads you to the source. Indeed as our first poster noted, the money never lies. Those two theories are even more solid than evolution, my friends.

There are two kinds of people in this world. Those who want to arrive at truth, and those for whom it is more important that they be judged right. You can’t belong to both, and you can spot them very very easily. The former prefer that all data be known for the sake of truth (and perhaps truth that they haven’t thought of first), the latter only want such data known as can be made to support what they think is correct. Most great human minds belong to the former. I won’t bother with which of the two categories most mediocre human minds belong to. By definition, data is not withheld by any who seek truth.

Also, I just have to say that it’s sublime comedy when I read appeals to authority — if the layman can’t understand it, it doesn’t mean it’s not happening. I say nay. The layman can be made to understand practically anything that is explainable, from basic math to derivatives. All of science is based on the availability of data and arguments about what that data means. Anyone who withholds data is not a scientist.

Last, I have seen the way public grants function. It is absolutely true that those spending scientific grant money are pre-screened to reach appropriate conclusions. Read some available grants and you’ll see what I mean. Policymakers always determine their own conclusions and then deploy public funds in support of them, because that is what allows them to take credit for “accomplishments” and earn higher and/or longer office.

I received a Masters degree from Tulane in the late nineties and took two semesters of graduate level mathematical physics – it would be cool if Dr Tipler was the professor. Whomever it was, I remember he was a really good teacher. This was right at the time that Tulane was switching to become a “research” university.

By the way,
wad: “you can tell what people know by watching their actions”
– We can tell that you know it’s time for your meds.

Just asking.