NOAA ice core data presented in successively longer time frames.
The source images can be found here: wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/historica
Note: Ice core data is no more recent than 1900 for the excellent reason that more recent snow has not fully compacted into ice yet. The instrumental record has been added in red and is labeled. This differs from "Mann's Nature trick" in that no data has been suppressed.
+ + +
And can someone explain this?
Orland CA has a long record of observation and an excellently sited station, not engulfed by urbanization. A capture of the data was done in 2007 by people who were checking the quality of the stations. Just recently, the data was pulled up again and was found to have been changed. This shows the before and after:
The pre-1900 data has disappeared entirely and the warm temperatures prior to about 1950 have been "adjusted" to appear cooler. This transforms an apparently stable series into one showing a modest increasing trend. The alteration seems to have been performed in September, prior to the leakage of the East Anglia emails. One possibility is the mindless use of a new computer program that inadvertently eliminated the raw data and replaced it with adjusted data that coincidently supported the consensus. If so, the Team needs a good PR flack to advise them how not to give the appearance of malfeasance.
The newer version has more recent points for the obvious reason that there have been more recent years.
A commboxer on WUTW commented that is was "hard to believe" that so many scientists could be involved in a conspiracy to fool the public. To this another commboxer names Paul Vaughan replied as follows:
Last spring when I was shopping around for a new source of funding, after having my funding slashed to zero 15 days after going public with a finding about natural climate variations, I kept running into funding application instructions of the following variety:
Successful candidates will:
1) Demonstrate AGW.
2) Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGW.
3) Explore policy implications stemming from 1 & 2.
Opposing toxic pollution is not synonymous with supporting AGW.
Hmm. Publish a paper finding natural climate variation and lose your funding. Self-interest will do in place of a conspiracy; esp. if those who don't go along wind up with no funding in the long run. And what's with that 3) above? That's not science; that's politics.
What makes all doctrines plain and clear?
About two hundred pounds a year.
And that which was prov'd true before
Proved false again? Two Hundred more.
-- Samuel Butler, Hudibras