Manchester is the preeminent source. And its repports are the primary source for the topic.
But you seem convinced that people are saying all the data has been corrupted. When what has been said is that the preeminent source appears compromised. With having disposed of their data, even they can not repeat their experiment. Then there is the matter of their refusal to reveal the factor that they use to "adjust" their data.
Just saying that data can be selected or refused based on "proper" calibration is already inducing a bias. Besides if all of the data comes from "properly" calibrated primary sources, why does it then require "tweeking" to produce a result?

Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
This is so much like the 9/11 conspiracy nuts: "All those engineers and explosives experts are hiding the truth, they all work for the government, etc., etc., etc.

Yes, climate models are based on complicated formulae. The atmosphere is a complicated place. Yes, if the author hides his data and procedures his results are not worth the paper they're printed on. Perhaps one or two groups have done this. The vast majority of scientists working on this are open and above board. Because they know that their results are meaningless without peer review and reproducibility.


Any scientist who cherry picks his data had better be able to come up with a valid reason for doing so. Such reasons do exist: this station's instruments weren't calibrated as required, that station's readings are too infrequent to be usable, any of a dozen possible reasons for discarding suspect data. There's nothing wrong with it as long as you can explain it.

As for "creating" a "process" "drawing the conclusion you want", apparently you don't understand climate modeling. You create your model, using historical data, and adjust your model (sometimes using programming "tricks") so that when you run the program it gives you historically accurate results. Only then can you run your model into the future, extrapolating data from historical records. If your model can't post-dict the past, it cannot predict the future.


Temperatures do not just go up. There are many cycles, all of which must be taken into account, some of which cause dropping of temperatures. These cycles will cause temps to rise again, too. The problem is that the high temperatures reached at the peaks of the cycles are higher than previously, while the low temperatures reached are not as low as previously. Overall, the trend is upwards. Specifically, we are just seeing the end of a sunspot minimum cycle, which historically produces lower temperatures. As the sunspot cycle ramps up we will undoubtedly see higher temperatures returning. And the problem is that all the data points to temperatures higher than historically.

As for the issue of solar radiation escaping, I'm not familiar with this, and it sounds to me like you may be misreading it. Solar radiation does not escape form Earth. It can be reflected by high cloud concentrations, certainly. But once it reaches the surface it's absorbed, heating the ground, or reflected as infrared radiation, which is absorbed by many gases in the atmosphere, including water vapor. So please cite your source for your statements, as I'd like to read it.

On the other hand, if the climate scientists can't be trusted to provide us with valid data and accurate conclusions, what makes you think those providing you with these temperature and radiation data are any more trustworthy? And if all the data is hidden, how are we getting the data which says these things are happening?

And let's also remember that any satellite data has only a 30 years or so history, far too short a time span to be able to say conclusively that anything is happening, without being tied to planet-bound data.