As to the adjustments, you’re simply asserting that the adjustments are “manipulations” to maximize warming. You don’t have any basis or evidence for this assertion. And that’s all it is.

Allow myself to Un-Confuse you with some facts and pretty pictures.

Global Mean Temperature data set GISS UAH RSS CRU
Per Decade trend period 1979-2010 +.17 +.14 +.10 +.13
Per Decade trend period 1979-1997 +.12 +.05 +.01 +.12
Per Decade trend period 1998-2010 +.14 +.04 -.06 +.01
Pre/Post 1997 gistemp trend divergence +.03 +.09 +.13

The Gistemp trend after 1997, (+.14), is rising at a rate of +.03 per decade faster than the UAH trend, (+.04), when compared to the pre-1998 per decade trends. (+.12 vs +.05)

http://neighbors.denverpost.com/album_pic.php?pic_id=10414

The Gistemp trend after 1997, (+.14), is rising at a rate of +.09 per decade faster than the RSS trend, (-.06) when compared to the pre-1998 per decade trends. (+.12 vs +.01)

http://neighbors.denverpost.com/album_pic.php?pic_id=10415

The Gistemp trend after 1997, (+.14), is rising at a rate of +.13 per decade faster than the CRU trend, (+.01) when compared to the pre-1998 per decade trends. (+.12 vs +.12)

http://neighbors.denverpost.com/album_pic.php?pic_id=10417

This is due to the fact that James Hansen at NASA-GISS adjusts anomalies pre-1998 cooler while after 1997 anomalies are adjusted warmer with each monthly release of his data set. These manipulations allow him to make his ever more alarming “warmer than anytime in history” statements.

For instance, when comparing data he released just 5 months ago, (Dec 2009), compared to the most recent data, we find that there were 52 anomalies changed before January 1998 to warmer and after January 1998 to cooler. There were 101 anomalies before January 1998 that were changed cooler and after January 1998 to warmer. Nearly twice as many. Who is the charlatan guilt? Hmm?

For the fourth time…. Why does Hansen do this?

It is only a matter of time before the music stops and Hansen will be caught without a chair.

Sources:
GISS: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
UAH: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.3
RSS:ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tmt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_2.txt
CRU: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly

So is Dougetit a charlatan or honestly confused over the math?

Hard to say, since he has yet to return to defend his claim.

I fear the former, which means he was wasting everyone’s time.

Well, he certainly wasted some of mine. What he claimed to be tracking doesn’t exist, as far as I can tell.

What does it take to get published in the field?

Good science.

Is it possible that the reason that 97%-98% agree is that those who don’t agree are much liess likely to get their work published?

Not really.

First, the more serious of the “skeptical” scientists (Lindzen, Christy, Landsea before he changed his mind, etc.) don’t seem to have any trouble getting published.

Second, the numbers from the study track quite well with other measures of scientific opinion such as polling. So, really, the results here should be classified as confirmation of previous results, not stunning new results.

Is it possible that the reason that 97%-98% agree is that those who don’t agree are much liess likely to get their work published?

Yes, I saw that when you posted the link earlier. Thought I’d take a whack at putting some numbers on its face.

As usual, there’s no “there” there.

At RealClimate, Hansen has a graph of which I linked to showing the same thing.

Same results, sorry. The GISTEMP data is identical. UAH is very slightly different (e.g., 0.198 instead of 0.200), but not enough to change the result.