Which data? Tree rings? National meteorological services? Sea surface temperatures?
I’ve maintained for years that what we have is an instrument problem, no agreement on adjustments, artbitrary corrections, imputed biases, a number of data sets spread a number of researchers, searching for a sieve.
In a perfect world, every measuring instrument would work exactly the same way, every time, not changing over time, every operator would conduct their observations exactly the same, and thus there would be no need for calibration, correction, or cross-checking.
This just in: it's not a perfect world. You do the best with what you can get, and you define your uncertainties with adequate error bars, significance tests, Q-tests, etc. Then you publish your results and let the world show what you did wrong.
Any attempt to conceal critical data by any unit is a red flag.
Conceal, yes, red flag, somebody has something to hide. Withhold until it is actually good data, according to proper data processing procedures; no red flag, this constitutes proper scientific effort.
I’m still not sure if you’re convinced through study or just stubborn.
Study. If somebody actually made a good argument that convinced me that I, along with the mainstream scientific community, was wrong on anthropogenic climate change, I'd jump ship before the rats.
But I read too much, I know too much, and I remember too much. (Somewhere early in the monster CRU Hack thread on RealClimate, Gavin said something to the effect of that he sometimes wishes he was wrong, but he knows he's not. I think along similar lines quite often. I wish there was more to hope for. There are little islands of hope still. But they are dwindling.)
The treerings are worthless, not even worth cutting them down or the extra CO2 that led to.
CRU has yet to produce the “lost raw data.”
Why keep or tolerate a bad instrument just because this isn’t a perfect world?
How can anybody trust accuracy rates of + - 1 degree or more when the entire argument rests on a putative 0.8C?
If any good comes out of this at all it will be voluntary conservation, not mandatory control of consumption.
Smart meters mean dumb people.