re: #271 cliffster

Data comes in, interpretation of the data goes out. What matters is if the code at CRU interprets the data correctly— does it mash it all together, average it, adjust for margins of error, perform the various mathematical functions that legitimately perform a statistical analysis on the data.

Here’s the RealClimate on it:

realclimate.org

Now, it is well known that these data are not perfect. Most records are not as complete as could be wished. Errors periodically creep in and have to be identified and weeded out. But beyond the simple errors of the key-entry type there are inevitably discontinuities or inhomogeneities introduced into the records due to changes in observing practices, station environment, or other non-meteorological factors. It is very unlikely there is any historical record in existence unaffected by this issue.

SNIP

Conclusion: There is no indication whatsoever of any problem with the CRU data. An independent study (by a molecular biologist it Italy, as it happens) came to the same conclusion using a somewhat different analysis. None of this should come as any surprise of course, since any serious errors would have been found and published already.