All those stats are fine and dandy, but what about the source data? If the source data is no good, then all the manipulations in the world will tell you nothing, other than that someone wrote a neat-o program.

From Anthony Watt’s report “Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?”, we get the following:

“In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source.

In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited. It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend.”

See the Surfacestations website for a bit more info:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

Next, let’s see those climate models as they currently stand be set to a period in the past (say, 1940), and then see how closely they map the real climate as it unfolded.

Finally, I have no small experience with governments and the way that governments fund institutions, and how funds are allocated. This creates in me a very healthy skepticism when I hear things like “creating new structures to combat (insert cause du jour)”.