The simplest way to look at it is to see the raw data vs adjustment data that he found juxtaposed. First, the raw data:
And the adjusted data:
And the animation he used to really highlight the difference:
Pretty big change. This was done at a lot of stations. They can be searched by going through the sources he used if one is so inclined. It’s really interesting to see the differences in stations before and after.
Raw data from GISS is here.
Adjusted data here.
And now today, from the DailyCaller:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming: They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record.
New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.
“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,’” wrote NOAA scientists in their study presenting newly adjusted climate data.
Watts Up With That has a lot more:
NCDC has been in the business of adjusting the surface temperature record for quite some time. The modus operandi so far has been to get a new paper published describing what NCDC considers to be a new and improved dataset, and since NCDC’s articles are often peer reviewed by other government employed scientists at NOAA, they often don’t get a critical peer review. Certainly, based on the reports I’ve received over the years, few if any skeptic scientists have ever been asked to review an NCDC paper on a new global temperature dataset and the techniques involved.
One important bit there is that they’re peer reviewed by other people with the same interests. All scientists are supposed to be questioning of everything – they’re supposed to be testing a hypothesis through experimentation and analysis of data – something that should be fairly objective in the case of “what number does the thermometer say?” They’re not supposed to be reevaluating data because they’re sure of their hypothesis so the instruments must all be wrong… and it’s telling that every time the instruments are wrong, they’re always wrong the same way… and the greater solutions they’re advocating for us are always the same.
WUWT also points out that part of the NOAA claim seems to be that the hiatus was due to faulty data to begin with… which was actually used to massage the data years ago in order to show global warming then. Adjust the temp down so you can show it go up precipitously in order to sound the alarm in the short term, then when reality shows it to be BS and you feel the need to sound the alarm again years later, you just erase that last time you cried wolf from the dataset with “adjustments” and then you cry wolf again. Or rather, not wolf, but Manbearpig.