A recent report indicates that the UN global warming data has consistently been falsely elevated due to the proximity of many of the measuring equipment to heat islands such as mechanical equipment and buildings. The report shows photographs of weather stations near heat-generating equipment which would distort their readings.
The findings cast further doubt on evidence put forward by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which claims the science supporting rising temperatures is unequivocal.
In response, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, acknowledged that there were problems with the global thermometer record but said these had been accounted for in the final report.
“It’s not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,” he said. “We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40 per cent and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.”
According to whom? On what basis? Has the reporting been held up to scrutiny and subject to review by anyone interested in the question? Are the results reproducible? Given what we now know about the handling of Global Warming 'science', is there any reason to take anything AGW proponents propose seriously?
As we see here, what has been 'hacked' or used for political and financial purpose, is not the Hadley CRU files, but the entire field of science as it pertains to global warming.
"The interests of Hulme and Pachauri are clear. Use the science arm at CRU to drive conclusions in the IPCC that will drive funding into Tyndall and drive money into TERI, Pachauri’s organization, and CRU."
The following recommendations seem sound to me if we are ever to trust anything emanating from this field of science again:
"The notion that science can move forward while individual climate scientists hide data from their critics is antithetical to the dictates of reason. CRU and others have no more excuses. All and any data used in climate science should be published under a Creative Commons like license, free for anyone to view and use. Confidential data should not be used; it is not necessary to the science. Phil Jones should be removed as an advisor to NOAA on data archiving and access. That’s having a black hat hacker in charge of the hardware. The code of climate science should likewise be freely available. In particular, we should press climate science to adopt a GPL license, one that enforces sharing of code."
There are no sources of information that I find to be compelling, simply because it is clear that the science was kidnapped to advance an agenda.