conclusion that this is a bunch of hot air. Mike in California I have an MS in geosciences. The good professor is saying exactly what my Climatology professor, and every meteorologist I've ever personally known says. Liam Cavin, the CRU publishes that temp data, but they do not publish the raw data they use as a source nor the methods they use to create an 'adjusted' data set for publication. This means that others are unable to check their workings or criticize their results. Even in the face of Freeedom of Information requests, they won't cough up the data. This is not how scientists are supposed to work, and in any other discipline they would not get away with it. With all of these temperature datasets (there are four which are widely used) the temps you see are adjusted, not actual temps. Nothing wrong with adjustments, provided they are done openly and based on a published method. However, you may wonder why NASA adjustments can cause temps from before WW2 to be adjusted colder over consecutive versions of the set because of new temps for the present coming in. It's inexplicable to me. For NASA, the source data is available, the methods are not. For CRU, we just have to take their output and there is no way to question it. The man responsible is Phil Jones from UEA. He will not release the data to any critic. We UK taxpayers are shelling out for this? itstrueekse A story from