Most famously in 1998 a new satellite was returning data and could not see any upper atmosphere warming, so the scientists adjusted the data because they claimed the satellite was more orbiting more elliptically then thought and that was effecting the data.

WSJ had an article several years ago documenting that there were 16 changes over 10 years to create an upward bias in equipment / or removing equipment which did not show a bias and 0 downward changes. This is possible, to find 16 mistakes all in one direction, but highly improbable. The article was out a few years ago – I wish I could find it again.

Suppose there is yet another driver that is causing both observed increases in temperature, and observed increases in CO2? Or, might the temperature increases themselves be causing increases in atmospheric CO2? (This would be causality in reverse to the conventional wisdom.)

If the latter, how might it be taking place? I don’t have a clue, but let me speculate just for sport. Say that there is a residual amount of biological material in the soil substrate…everywhere, all over the earth, wherever there is land. Microbes are constantly consuming and processing this material, and releasing CO2 as a waste product. During warmer temperatures, the rate at which the the biological material is processed is faster than the rate at which it occurs during cooler temperatures. Thus, warm temperatures produce higher measured amounts of atmospheric CO2. Eventually, increasing plant matter may end up consuming this “excess” CO2. But for brief periods (and by “brief”, we might be talking about decades or centuries here) there may be a lag between the excess CO2 and the ability of the growing plant world to consume it.

What is the likelihood that this is indeed the case? Very small, I would say. Yet, the history of science is repleat with examples of truth becoming falsehood, while falsehood becomes truth. Does anybody doubt that?

—Tom Nally, New Orleans

You think that CRU might not be quite done tossing the inconvenient truth in the dumper?

Reeingeneering of data may be of some help but is no substitute for the original data. Who – in this fraudulent gang – can guarantee for the correct engineering process and what is such a guarantee worth.

The only correct way is to skip CRU (and Hadley) data of the last decades. It is pure phantasy, fiction.

Since the urban hot spot effect is readily measurable to give several degrees of warming, the correct approach is to take temperature records from long established weather stations that are at present semi rural. This is most easily done in areas that have long been advanced (therefore white) and are lightly populated – the north, in particular Hudson bay, South Africa, the US, New Zealand and Australia. Brazil might also be good. The North and New Zealand, unadjusted, indicate no twentieth century warming. I am unaware of the the surface temperature data from other likely sources.

For proxy measures of temperature, the two plausibly reliable measures are the treeline and the sea ice area. Sea ice area only goes back to 1978, but treeline data goes all the way back for thousands of years. Research results on the treeline appear to have been suppressed, but the emails reveal suppressed research results showing no twentieth century warming, and medieval warm period substantially warmer than the twentieth century.

“New analyses of balloon-borne and satellite measurements of lower- and mid-tropospheric temperature show warming rates that are similar to those of the surface temperature record and are consistent within their respective uncertainties, largely reconciling a discrepancy noted in the TAR.”

A detailed analysis produced by dozens of scientists as part of the US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) identified and corrected errors in the satellite data and other temperature observations.

The CCSP SAP 1.1 Executive Summary states:

“Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.”

Near as I can figure the CCSP was a Gov bureau created to torture the satellite data until it matched the crap being dished out by Had Crut.
Here’s an executive summary with a list of the principles involved.
Convening Lead Author: Tom M. L. Wigley, NSF NCAR
Lead Authors: V. Ramaswamy, NOAA; J.R. Christy, Univ. of AL
in Huntsville; J.R. Lanzante, NOAA; C.A. Mears, Remote Sensing
Systems; B.D. Santer, DOE LLNL; C.K. Folland, U.K. Met Office

Wigley and Santer are both neck deep in the muck of CRU.

In May 2006, the first of 21 CCSP Synthesis and Assessment reports was issued with NOAA serving as the lead agency. Titled “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences”[9] the report identified and corrected errors in satellite temperature measurements and other temperature observations, allowing for increased confidence in the conclusion that on a global scale the lower atmosphere is growing warmer and that:

“there is no longer a discrepancy in the rate of global average temperature increase for the surface compared with higher levels in the atmosphere.” … “the observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone”.[10]

I’ll tell you the leak I’d like to see.
I’d like to see John Christy’s emails pertaining to CRU thugs fucking up his sat data.
Bet those are some lively notes.