"It would be ridiculous if some of the catastrophic global warming so often reported by experts via our ABC were just a consequence of a new method of recording temperatures!"

Yes it would be ridiculous to think a mistake had been made accidentally.
You need to look up Hegalien dialectic, Problem, Reaction, Solution.

The first step (thesis) is to create a problem.
The second step (antithesis) is to generate opposition to the problem (fear, panic and hysteria).
The third step (synthesis) is to offer the solution to the problem created by step one:
- A change which would have been impossible to impose upon the people without the proper psychological conditioning achieved in stages one and two.

Once you get past that, you might consider that what you are witnessing as homogenised data and 'accidentally and incorrectly modified' resulting in Global Warming prognosis is actually homogenised data 'ON PURPOSE' in order to push the Global Warming agenda for alternative reasons.

You need to go back to this and look at the agenda of those who originally published and supported the idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

@ ANT, As Dr Marohasy is currently overseas, I’ll respond on her behalf WRT your blind acceptance of the so-called independent enquiries into the Climategate email affair. Very briefly, here is an email extract from Tom Wigley to Phil Jones, the top scientists at the CRU: <blockquote>Phil, here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we'd still have to explain the land blip. “I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip…"<blockquote/> Here is an interesting expose on corruption of the 1940’s temperature records for Iceland: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/the-icelandic-saga-continues/ This ‘Trove’ record from 1940 is also interesting: <blockquote>”…it was concluded that near Polar temperatures are on an average six degrees higher than those registered by Nansen 40 years ago. Ice measurements were on an average only 6½ feet against from 9¼ to 13 feet…”<blockquote/> https://tinyurl.com/y8sztww4 And this from 1940: Warmer disappearing Arctic ice scientists reports https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS19401214.2.31 You won’t find mention of at NSIDC or on your favourite blogs such as Tamino’s (smile)

@ ANT continued Coming back to the Climategate “Independent Enquiries”, there is a parallel with the “Technical Advisory Forum” enquiry which was set-up in 2015 to investigate the quality of the Bureau of Meteorology’s homogenization programme (ACORN-SAT). It was installed by Bob Baldwin on behalf of the Environment Minister to investigate various complaints from the public. It met with the Bureau for just one day, when the home team spent the morning presenting their story to the panel. After lunch, there was a question and answer session. An imposing report was later published in which among other things, they declared that ACORN-SAT was amongst world best practice. However, it was admitted that none of the public submissions (including mine) that were formalized for the enquiry, and which were invited for review by Baldwin, in fact, were NOT reviewed by the panel. Starting in December last year, I advised the Bureau Helpdesk with four emails some serious errors in their data which they have refused to openly accept. Eventually, while still refusing to accept their errors, they advised on 14/February: <blockquote> “…Perth Airport was one of a handful of sites where there were issues associated with the use of parallel observations that were only taken for a relatively short span of time (i.e. the period of overlapping observations associated with a site move is shorter than ideal). This issue has been remediated in version 2 of the analysis, which is due for release this year…”<blockquote/> In fact the overlap period was three years, which is three times longer than the minimum allowed in the ACORN-SAT methodology ACORN-SAT was declared best practice in 2015 and it is to be replaced by a new version later this year? I’m only writing this in case any readers pass by. YOU will of course not accept this advice

Bob

I only referenced one review of a "Climate Gate" investigation, there were a number of other investigations. You state that the scientists are guilty; do you have access to all the information collated by all the investigations? How is it possible to determine guilt or otherwise when you do not have access to all the information presented at an investigation?
It is a matter of jumping to a conclusion without knowing all the details.

You have made your mind up against the official reports; if you took a skeptical view neither accepting or denying Climate Gate; then, I can accept your position. If taking a skeptical position; then, constantly claiming that "Climate Gate" displays nefarious use of information you are not taking a skeptical approach. That puts you with the groups that support conspiracy theories. That's a non-scientific or rational approach.

Siliggy

Your reference:

http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Jpg/1907/1907_09.jpg

September is when the Arctic minimum is recorded probably much earlier in 1907. Your referenced map states for all areas shown in white that "St of ice unkn"; in other words sailors had no means to reach those areas and so could not comment.

Agreed Bob Fernley-Jones?

Satellite data confirms the loss of ice in Greenland (2012&2002):

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL053611/full

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/313/5795/1958

Temperature (2008):

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2007JCLI1964.1

Siliggy, try google scholar ( melting of greenland ice sheet) before suggesting pinning your argument to one reference. There were 60,000 entries, I clicked up to page 50, and entries were still specific to request.

There may or may, not be a change in conditions in the Arctic at present; over the last winters sea ice has been late in forming.

It would be silly to draw conclusions from this graph:

https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/967081306147274757/photo/1

We need to wait and see what maximum sea ice extent is, prior to melting beginning.
It is the same with jumping to conclusions in relation to Greenland when the longer trend line has been going down.

Bob Fernley-Jones

It just occurred to me to go to RationalWiki to find if they had discussed "Climate Gate", the matter had been investigated more than I realised, as discussed in rationalwiki.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climategate

From their about section:

"Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;
Documenting the full range of crank ideas;
Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;
Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media."

At the site there are hyperling explaing further those points.