You can find links to NOAA's data here. If you want links to the historical raw data I believe you can find it here or here but you may have to apply corrections to the data yourself.

The unknown author reminds me of this Jonova pic posted recently.

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics-handbook-ii/web-pics/circular-journo-flat-web.gif

Very simple.

Scientific Research should be published and available freely to the public, and transparent.

This is not what is happening with the Climate Research.

Why is this not a simple thing?

The reason why is because these people are not interested in Climate Research, that is why.

They want to set a precedent to tax all nations on earth, they don't care what the topic is....if it is to make believe we can control the climate on Earth, so be it.

Science always goes wrong when people close it. I know they come up with all sorts of excuses....Well, we cannot have THEM looking at our research, they aren't qualified!

Oh, we can't have the public look at it, they are too stupid to understand the papers WE write.

Oh, our data is PROPRIETARY, we are sorry, you can't look at it.

I have read and seen every single line and its CRAP.

Give you another example how insidious this is. I got a Email from a prof, here at UW-Madison soliciting work on a cool wireless project, with new cutting edge hardware. I wrote back and said I am interested to learn about the hardware as long as I don't have to sign a non disclosure agreement and it wasn't a broadcom device which if it was no need to reply.

Haven't heard anything.

Wireless is a sticking point with me. Everyone knows what goes on with wireless stuff. Especially when dealing with Broadcom devices on linux. Closure of the hardware gets me very angry, and I started shouting about the crap that happens behind the scenes between Microsoft's licensing of wireless and companies that provide or even hint at opening their drivers. Essentially Microsoft will threaten or imply the drivers API may or may not change and arbitrarily not including them in the installation process for Windows out of the box.

The second thing I do not like about not sharing information, whether it is to lock in markets like broadcom and microsoft alliance tries to do, or why wireless N took 5 years to approve, or JUST PLAIN F'IN GOOD OLE AMERICAN CORPORATE GREED, you basically end up with bad products.

So is it not anyones surprise, that just like trying to use a closed wireless hardware device and be all secretive and crap, you get crappy working devices, likewise you close climate research or research in general, you get crappy research.

In this case, research with a purpose to keep scientists busy by buying their silence, while you use the results of the work to establish a nefarious world wide governmental bureaucracy, to make trillions.

Meanwhile, people will die by the millions, which I sometimes wonder if Copenhagen meetings real issue they discuss is population control.

-Hack

It's now at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

Perhaps you could back this up in some kind of way.

Which climate skeptics are on the payroll of "big oil" and are getting the "same weight" as pro-AGW-IPCC scientists?

What irrefutable data shows AGW to be true?

Look forward to your references, you're not just pulling this out of your ass, I'm sure. Heaven forfend.

This whole Greed thing is getting out of hand and it will be the end of us all.

The climate gate issue is incredibly damning.

There they all are in Copenhagen, just pretending like nothing happened.

Everyone first has to realize that these people working on "Climate Change" in Copenhagen do not care about people, plants, polar bears or anything else for that matter except control and the unlimited supply of money an entire world economy enslaved under a carbon credit ponzy scheme.

That is what they really want.

-Hack

Others already pointed out that you're being a bit optimistic here, but I'll point out where you yourself indicated that: open source software can be modified by anyone - but it is successfully modified only by those who are intimately familiar with it. The rest of us just use it and trust that the coders who worked on it did the right thing. And that trust in open-source science and scientists just evaporated for a lot of people.

"His analysis of some 30 studies showed..." ... and this is precisely where one can stop reading. A sample size of 30 is far to small to make ANY statement, it doesn't even prove a weak correlation or a trend!! Why do so many studies get attention which have so small sample sizes? I can't belive it!

I'd love to see this being done to newspapers, it would really help the carbon balance. Ya know, publish only raw news and leave out the commentaries and the opinions. A lot of newspapers could be reduced to little more than a leaflet, saving a lot of trees in the process.

The evil sulfur pollution that causes much of global warming and harm to human health is blamed on cars. This is not true. If you wanted to create the same effect on sulfur pollution as shredding every personal auto on Earth, you could do so by sinking 16 ships. 16. Not billions, not millions, not 1/2 or 1/3 or 1/1000th. 16.

/16 ships create more pollution than all the cars in the world.

Not to mention your predictions based on stuff you can replicate actually come true.

In the 80's they were getting us all apeshit over a hole in the ozone layer.

In the 70's it was the coming Ice Age.

Each iteration has allowed these Bilderberger manipulators opportunity and experience to refine their forays against reality.

NOAA data is fudged and tampered now:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/yet-more-stuff-we-always-suspected-but-its-nice-to-have-proof.html