Climategate?

djpbarry wrote: »

One of the central points of Eschenbach’s article was the fact that a lack of stations exist in Australia for compiling a temperature record. Using Darwin as an example, he claimed that:

“...that led me to look at exactly how the GHCN “adjusts” the temperature data.
...
They pick five neighboring stations, and average them. Then they compare the average to the station in question. If it looks wonky compared to the average of the reference five, they check any historical records for changes, and if necessary, they homogenize the poor data mercilessly.
...
The nearest station that covers the year 1941 is 500 km away from Darwin. Not only is it 500 km away, it is the only station within 750 km of Darwin that covers the 1941 time period. (It’s also a pub, Daly Waters Pub to be exact, but hey, it’s Australia, good on ya.) So there simply aren’t five stations to make a “reference series” out of to check the 1936-1941 drop at Darwin.”

This claim is simply not true.

Furthermore, at no point does Eschenbach demonstrate that the Darwin data was manipulated, assuming that, in this case, Eschenbach is referring to insidious practice in using the term ‘manipulated’. He has not demonstrated that wrong-doing has taken place, he has simply compared the ‘raw’ data with the adjusted and assumed that something untoward is going on.
Examine the report yourself if you want – I did post the link so others could view it. I merely chose the Eschenbach article, which appears under the section heading of “Case Studies in Data Manipulation”, as an example. In the second case study (“New Zealand Warms to Warming”), the authors compile their own temperature record for New Zealand and, in doing so, remark on ‘raw’ temperature records from individual stations:

“...the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections.”

Based on? What exactly? Again, the implication is that the data ‘looks’ ok, therefore no adjustments should be required.

Case 3 (“Other Examples of Temperature Adjustment”) kicks off with:

“Temperature adjustments are often made to US stations that are hard to explain but invariably increase the apparent warming.”

A series of graphs follow, with, once again, the implication being that unnecessary adjustments are being made to artificially exaggerate warming trends. However, at no point is it actually demonstrated that something untoward is taking place – the authors simply assume that there is. Hence, I am dismissing this report on the basis that it contains little (if anything) in the way of factual evidence for insidious data manipulation on the part of climatologists.