Reading through my various tweets on the bus I find Mr Parker-Joseph has posted the following link to am article on how it is looking increasingly likely that GISS and NOA and their data sources have been intentionally undermining the quality of it by ignoring the detectors in colder-lying regions all over the world.
This is seen as a shock by many people- why? If there were a systematic trend bias being consciously perpetrated by one group (say the UEA/CRU hegemony) and not another it would very quickly be subjected to scrutiny, discuss and theories revised.
This leads me to the eureka effect- the moment something is discovered which represents a solution to a particular problem. In this instance the bias was introduced to exagerate the perceived change in climate to make it more dramatic. This is what is know as lying through your teeth and where the real eureka moment for the political class and pop-scientists who suckle it lies; they would have you believe the eureka is bound in their espousal of major curbs in emissions of one type of gas in a chaotic, barely understood system but that is a lie: it I'd a false eureka.
Years ago on my undergraduate studies a lecturer told us that the most important words you'll ever hear in scientific pursuit is not the one word: Eureke, for that can really only be applied to something you had a certain inkling in knowing of it's existence, but in 2 words: "that's funny..."
If climategate has taught us anything it is to be wary of anyone telling you their is any such thing as a settled science or a "consensus" on the subject, especially when it's quickly followed by a demand for your wallet.