The Hadley CRU emails cast doubt on the reliability of the temperature records of CRU. Supporters of the AGW hypothesis contend that the issues with CRU data are not significant because of the data from other researchers. The problem is that the other researcher’s data appears to be as questionable as that of CRU. It is claimed that the work of the AGW Hypothesis proponents has been peer reviewed. But there is indication that the reviewers never had the raw data involved, nor examined how that data had been manipulated. (It is also highly doubtful that the reviewers ever examined the computer programs that were used in producing the works. The reason is that it is difficult and time consuming to make such a review and many of the prominent scientists doing the reviewing are not expert coders, nor should they be. Actually the reviews would have been better if done by persons less exalted but more expert in the actual work.) I always had doubts about the global warming, but never doubted the reported Global Average Temperature Anomaly (GATA) until I read a not-very-good book by Michael Crichton titled, as I recall, State of Fear. In an Appendix to the book there was a compilation of raw temperature data from locations across the United States that showed that temperature fell for most of the 20th century. It was hard to see how the GATA was increasing when looking at that data. Dr. Crichton was a highly successful though below average author of fiction, but was a brilliant man. Everyone should read his testimony to the Senate in which he described the need for truly independent research, particularly in matters that were political.

It is abundantly clear that the people who are doing climate research that supports the AGW hypothesis are not truly independent, nor are they unbiased. This becomes clear when one looks at the results of independent review of the raw temperature data from around the world. Here is an example from Australia. There are similar examples from New Zealand and the United States. These examples are not proof that the accepted GATA values are not valid, but they certainly indicate the need for independent review before making policy decisions that involve draconian changes to the economy.

There are also some serious issues with the proposition that sensitivity to increase in CO2 temperature is greater than one, but that is complicated. But, it means that GATA is not going to spiral upward even if temperature has been going up recently.