Anthony Watts has finally produced his long-awaited study showing that moving temperature gauges next to steam pipes, air conditioners, and asphalt — get this — changes the temperature trends.  As Anthony points out, there hasn’t been much serious criticism, and AGW proponents seem to be the only theorists in the world who spend vastly more time and energy defending poor methodologies than coming up with better ones.  It’s frankly comical that a team of unpaid volunteer skeptics had to do the real fieldwork of actually looking at the stations, something the tens of billions spent on climate science annually apparently couldn’t cover.

Propitious timing, as NOAA and environmental activists are desperately trying to avoid complying with Congressional oversight into whether politics is driving ever-higher surface data adjustments. This particular farce has gone beyond mere confirmation bias and entered the realm of Lysenkoism. Do they really not understand that billions of tax dollars come with certain legal strings attached? “Shut up and go away” is not an acceptable response to a Congressional subpoena.  The taxpayers paid for the scientists as well as the nonscientists whose government records they deigned to release. No oversight? Fine, no funding. Shut NOAA down until they comply.  Good luck in the private sector, folks.  One further hopes these savages either fully comply or end up in jail for obstruction, as their behavior is horribly corrosive to scientific integrity, the spirit of free inquiry, the principles of objectivity and reproducibility, and the rule of law.

NOAA released only what was nonresponsive to the inquiry into what role motivated reasoning and political bias may have played in the adjustments, questions that are totally reasonable given graphs like this and this and this even before the Watts study — and the best proxy might be Great Lakes ice: record extents and record late ice were reported during what non-adjusted weather stations reported as record cold, but NOAA reported the Great Lakes temps as about average.

In fact it’s gotten so ridiculous, conspiracy theorists like Scott K Johnson at Ars Technica (a cesspool of anti-science which quickly bans commenters who post dissenting links to actual science — the climatollahs will not entertain well-founded doubts about the wisdom of their jihad) seem to think ordinary government oversight is some sort of beyond-the-pale Inquisition, even as prominent Democrats and leftists are vocally trying to outlaw skepticism — not cut off funding (they already don’t get any), mind you, but actually put skeptics in jail for questioning climate change theories.

Hilariously, Scott tells us that “in the real world” the surface data is better than satellites, despite all the siting problems and the need to do spatial gridding, infilling, TOBs, and the fact they famously cannot even decide what the temperature was in July 1937 but have to change it every few months. Satellites by contrast require some calibration but they take orders of magnitude more measurements, across the height of the atmosphere, with much less instrument variation, and don’t have a ridiculously biased series of adjustments. And of course the warming models are supposed to predict atmospheric warming, not a massively adjusted data set of temperatures in poorly sited enclosures scattered across the surface.

The degree and speed with which inconvenient facts are now memory-holed by AGW proponents is breathtaking, it was not that long ago that the respective accuracies of satellites and surface stations was so uncontroversial NASA was calling for surface measurements to be abandoned.  I myself downloaded and wrote database scripts for the NCDC data a while back because I couldn’t believe Goddard’s claim that almost half of the data was now being fabricated, not measured. But it was true, 43% were marked as computer-generated, as anyone with modest programming skills can confirm for themselves. Naturally, the Democrats at Politifact then contacted and unquestioningly cited a geography (!) professor who self-righteously harrumphed that there was “no fabrication,” despite the fact the data is unambiguously marked as such, and added to their article a slew of additional misinterpretations favorable to Democrats, giving a perfect example of how the media covers AGW specifically and science in general.

Fortunately, we still live in the greatest country in the world, one where this kind of nonsense leads people to the reasonable conclusion that climate change is one of the least important issues of our time.