Bishop Hill writes about the NOAA surface temperature reconstruction:
We have seen this kind of thing before: the adjustments to the series produce cooling at the start of the series and warming at the end.
And we’ve seen this kind of cowardly and baseless insinuation that scientists are engaged in fraud before too.
(Of course, this doesn’t mean that it hasn’t warmed; only that the trend may be being exaggerated.)
And of course, the trend may not “be being exaggerated” at all.
The possibility that the adjustments are warranted, that the upward trend is therefore actually closer to the truth, and is entirely because of global warming seemingly never even occurs to him.
I think this kind of thing must set alarm bells ringing among reputable scientists.
I think this kind of thing must set alarm bells ringing only among barking lunatics. When multiple independent temperature reconstructions have come up with essentially the same answer as NOAA, objecting to one of them is like looking at six clocks all telling roughly the same time, and claiming that one of them is fast.
To top it all this (libellous?) insinuation that NOAA scientists are engaged in fraud comes only a day after approvingly posting this handwringing about one of their own:
Roger has been publicly libelled and abused across the world to the detriment of his reputation and has suffered distress, inconvenience and damage to property
Sound familiar? Truly you can’t make this stuff up.
(Amusingly, Bishop Hill has also campaigned for reform of the libel laws, which these days seems as understandable as it is hypocritical.)