Climate alarmism is very political. It can also be quite amusing. At http://notrickszone.com/2015/07/06/noaa-fudging-turns-into-a-mess-bangor… …. and http://notrickszone.com/2015/07/07/noaas-data-debacle-alterations-ruin-1… … by token of the law of unintended consequences. We are commonly aware of politicians falling into this sink – not thinking through new legislation thoroughly enough, but it is also common to climate science squrimings as a result of a desire to keep the global warming myth alive. Playing around with temperature data can produce unforeseen consequences as occurred in recent changes made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the US. The fiddling of the data involved making the past colder and the present warmer – in order to get rid of the hiatus. This produced curious side effects, such as southern Maine being colder than northern Maine. NOAAs computer programming algorithm is completely automatic and therefore will chuck out whatever is programmed into the system – and contradictions abound.
At https://stevegoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/07/revisiting-the-past-at-noa… … is on the same subject (but not specifically about Maine). Goddard pulls no punches and claims NOAA was ordered by political heavyweights to get rid of the hiatus – as it was cramping their big plan to make global warming the number one project of the last couple of years of the Obama administration. The Democratic political machine, or that is the implication drawn by Goddard, wanted the administration to leave a mark so that future generations may consider Obama in a favourable light. Unfortunately, although they be able to manipulate politics and pull strings to get their way, when it comes to science the truth will always be outed and his legacy might be the opposite of what they desire. He may well be remembered as the president that presided over a giant cock-up – all down to his eager political minions and the party machine.
You might also like to read how the Australian equivalent, BOM, adjusts their data (strenuously and regularly it would seem) – go to http://joannenova.com.au/scandal-bom-thermometer-records-fiddled-by-mont…
Over at http://judithcurry.com/2015/07/06/new-research-on-atmospheric-radiative-… … looks at three new papers that appear to be saying the settled science of greenhouse warming of the planet is far from settled in reality. The theory is that co2 warms the atmosphere – but only by a couple of degrees. The really hot temperatures as displayed in climate modelling involves radiative transfer which it is thought is capable of quadrupling the warmth generated by co2 – leading to a runaway greenhouse effect (as considered a likely explanation for the heat within the Venus atmospheric system). In other words, co2 has never been the main driver of global warming – it is the heat trapped inside the earth system (the greenhouse) which exacerbates the problem. By assuming there is a greenhouse and rising heat cannot easily escape the system they have created a scary situation for themselves – and tried to convince the rest of us to be scared as well. However, other climate scientists are quite away that the planet gains heat over the tropics and loses it at the poles. Some climate scientists blame it on the ozone hole – and so on. You will need to read the post and comments (usually involving knowledgeable people at this site, both pro and contra global warming) to get an angle on what is being inferred. The three research papers are not antagonistic to CAGW. They cannot be otherwise they would not have got published in a settled science journal. However, they refer to a feature passed over glibly in a lot of models – radiative forcing. They cast a little doubt on the mainstream arguments.