WUWT’s Willis Eschenbach has supposedly uncovered how Evil scientists have fabricated a warming trend in Darwin. Deltoid has the details on why those pesky adjustments were actually made. Of course those details were cleverly hidden, like Jone’s decline, where no denialist would ever find it: in the peer reviewed literature!
This fake investigation is called cherry picking, digging through the batch to find the slightly off colored examples. But what happens if you look at the whole bowlful all at once, as did this Italian Medical bio-technologist? (Yes, yes, not a climatologist, not even a weatherman, but we are talking statistical analysis here, nothing more, nothing less). Real Climate has also made a similar study of raw station data. (Yes, yes, they are in cahoots with the whole climafia, but at least they provide the data this time!)
I wonder if it has ever occured to our supposedly skeptical visitors just why it is that all these fine blog scientists never do this same, simple, study for themselves. Look at all the data. I mean isn’t that what they are constantly screaming about wanting? So why do we hear about one station here, one station there? After all, if the “adjustments” (always use scare quotes on that one) are to turn innocent non-warming stations like Darwin into alarmist propaganda, then surely the simplest extraction of a trend out of raw data would be the proof of that pudding!
Excuse the distasteful image of meat flavoured pudding, but I did want to end my rant with: where’s the beef?