Now hear this !
I do not "know" whether the world is warming or not.
All I know is that people fiddling with the paperwork does not give
rise to confidence. If the repeatability of the instrument is valid
then there is no reason to suspect its measurements.
Max says it was moved, from where to where ? Surely someone would
know who moved it and if it is still with the same organisation it
could not have moved far.
Was it in shade and was moved into the sun ?
Surely someone knows ? Anybody asked retired employees ?
Without knowing the answer to those questions it is improper to change the paperwork.
Simple bit of detective work needed. Should not be difficult as the
date of the alleged change in known. The original base on which it
stood may even be visible. Was a new building built at that time ?
Would the new building have shaded the shelter and so it was moved
to keep it in the sun ?
Rutherglen has become a symbol of "The figures are fiddled" on one
side and "Sensible adjustments" on the other.
It would be worthwhile for the AFP to be sent after the evidence.
Don't let the alleged offenders near the evidence.

The Global Energy Group at Upsalla University presented a paper that
did a survey on all known oil & coal fields and found that the figures
for affordable fossil fuels used by the IPCC papers were too high.
It would be interesting if they did it again because coal production
seems to have peaked already and the oil companies also have problems
with the return on development and discovery. So much so they have
cut back most search and development. Insufficient return on investment.

Max
The question is why would BOM, JMA, CSIRO, NOAA et al wish to fraudulently change temperature?

We know that more evaporation takes place on a hot day. The creation of water vapour is extended when water bodies are warm and surface temperature is high. Rain bombs are created in high temperatures where major water bodies are present, with example after example being observed. An example showing temperatures going up without the need for a thermometer.

Recently the "Third Pole" was on the news, Chinese scientists were concerned about the rate of melt of Himalayan glaciers. Most people would agree that warming temperature causes snow and ice to melt, perhaps that's not the case with deniers. No need for thermometers here.

Armchair Critic

You use Monckton as a reference when he has neen shown to present material that has been cherry picked or changed from the original scientific paper.

Blurb in relation to Monckton being debunked:

"Monckton has responded to my catelogue of his errors, on the website wattsupwiththat.com
It includes an extraordinary reversal of position on most of them, including an outright denial of what he said (needless to say, I have video tape of him saying it.)"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K74fzNAUq4

The advice given is go to the original piece of science rather than rely on a denier's interpretation.

Ant you asked why those organisations (BOM et al)would want to change the data? Well that was the whole point of the original article?
Then the usual tirade from you.
Mate, this is the point, you just do not get it. There is a deep mistrust of scientists who research and when asked for a conclusion say they need to get more money for research. It has now got to the point where the researchers are more numerous than the people actually doing something.
When Flannery sells his waterfront land I will have a concern but until then my only concern is the wastage of our tax money.

Bowyer,
I don't think you get it. There is a deep mistrust of oil and coal and gas CEO's who earn more in a day than a climate scientist does in a year! There is deep distrust of oil barons that actively sponsor climate deniers and lies and rumour-mills. There is a deep distrust of oil and coal barons that destroy mountain tops, deplete resources, buy politicians, warp the democratic process, pollute nations, and ultimately kill 3 million people a year. (WHO).

Other than that, I'm sure they're saints, and completely trustworthy! ;-)

Calm down Max Green. Those climate scientists earn a lot more than me, an OAP. No one is paying me, worse luck, in fact I have been paying tax most of my life.
I hear what you say about the fossil fuel industry but being ripped of by the Fossil Fuel Lobby and scientists is even worse. My point was/is that these scientists are as untrustworthy as the fossil fuel industry. Let's go them both!
I would go nuclear, of course, but try getting than by the Greens.

Don't worry Jbower,
the first time the power goes off in the middle of cooking dinner the
ladies will be demanding nuclear power by tomorrow afternoon !

Calm down, I said ladies because you married men will know what I mean.