In the language of the scientist a "fudge factor" can be a necessary correction. One would not use this term in a paper but in a program or informal discussions, it would be common.

So finding it in a program means little. In fact, someone attempting to distort the data would probably not use that term. It would be very easy to bury such an operation so that it would be extremely difficult find. So what you have uncovered does not mean anything either way.

Why do raw data not agree with the processed data? Again there might be necessary corrections factors. Do you know if there are? If so, can you show that it was done incorrectly?

What you are trying to do is quite difficult, but perhaps you really will find something. More power to you if you do!

But I am not betting on your success. The reason for my pessimism is that you have been a global warming denier without the evidence. I have no reason to think that you can treat the "evidence" objectively now that there might be some.

There is nothing wrong with thinking that the sun controls the climate; certainly in the very long run it must be true. But the evidence for this control on the relevant timescales is weak. It is true that the sun is currently in a most unexpected state! We are still sitting nearly at dead solar minimum when we should be climbing up to maximum. Why? No one knows, but intelligent knowledgeable people have some ideas. Perhaps some understanding of the importance of solar activity for the climate will come out of this. Who knows?

Yet another post that does not actually deliver on the facts that will blow open whatever conspiracy you are working on.

If global warming is a fraud, and you now have the evidence that proves it, lets see it.

Certainly after reading their emails I am not inclined to blindly trust these people.

That is a understandable, and I think that there now should be an independent look at the data, etc. But who can all sides trust to do it? Feynman died a long tine ago.

Well, you are welcome to some of our raw data (no, not lower atmospheric temperatures); it is in principle freely available soon after it is collected. Some other fraction of the data belongs to the scientist who proposed the experiment for a couple of years so that he or she can find the time to process it, interpret it, and write a paper.

Actually, our raw data is sometimes a few Tbytes of 2 byte integers taken over a few days, and nobody with any sense who is not involved in the project would want anything to with it. If you are a graduate student in the field you learn what to do with it in a few years.

Maybe lower atmospheric temperature raw data is easier to work with, but I would not count on an obviously biased non-expert coming up with much of any value.

Wow, that was one scary rant by the fellow (Christopher Monckton).

Especially

have written to each other encouraging the destruction of data that had been lawfully requested under the Freedom of Information Act in the UK by scientists who wanted to check whether their global temperature record had been properly compiled.

A quick look at Wiki's article on the UK FOIA reveals this exception to the FOIA:

Requests for information about matters concerning the environment are dealt with by the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. Those regulations, while similar to the FOIA, do differ in a number of ways.

Apparently it makes it even easier to get information on environmental matters. Think how much better his rant could have been if he knew that!

Seriously now, fraud has already been proven! How did he do that so fast?

Well, one side believes AGW is true irrespective of any possibility of disproof (i.e., are unwilling to entertain the notion that the theory could be disproved by any empirical evidence),...

I am sure you get this bit of "wisdom" from observing the behavior of your many acquaintances who are climate modelers, and so I will not even bother to try to persuade you that it is a lot of nonsense.

The current email scandal is the most exciting thing the deniers have ever come up with. It casts no doubt on AGW, but it will make scientists a lot more careful in the future.

I believe you actually do think the U.S. should shut up in China until it gets its house in order. I was kind of surprised to learn that here today, but that seems like a really prevalent view for some reason.

I am surprised that you attribute so little effect to hypocrisy in high places. When Soviet leaders practiced it in the earlier stages of the cold war, it helped make it easier to demonize them and communists in general.

By the way, what do the gold stars mean?

It is the Salon Golden Rule. You fork over some of your gold; you get a gold star, and you do not see adds for food processors.

On another note, if one is seeking an excellent example of the phenomenon you describe (i.e., "The more outrageous the proponent and the more outrageous his claims, the more likely he will be believed"), one need look no further than AGW, whose conspiritorial contagion - now exposed to the air - are ramifying into a full-feldged scandal and soon (one hopes) a criminal investigation.

Actually, that is not an example. There is way too much evidence for AGW. That does not mean it is certain, of course, but there can be little real doubt. Since the claims do not appear in a court room, one does not pound the table, one just invents conspiracies.