What an exercise in the disingenuous nature of the climate change "skeptics" and lukewarmists.
For the umpteenth time, Graham Lloyd at The Australian runs a story promoting the "science" of lone, home based bloggers as parsed by wildly discredited and unreliable denier columnists like Booker and Delingpole.
Within the body of the story will be the response by actual scientists, denying there is anything to it, so that Lloyd can (presumably) hide behind a cloak of "balance". (Entirely false balance, of course.)
I see that Judith Curry has a guest post (on the entire question of homogenisation) by those who worked on the BEST re-working of the temperature record, which, using different methods, entirely confirmed that the homogenisation and adjustments make very, very little difference to the big picture as worked out by the pre-existing groups.
And - Judith Curry makes no comment in support of the post. She will make a vaguely "I wonder if this is right, it might be important" for any speculative papers about cycles and what not, but for a straightforward one in support of the science, she won't. How pathetic.
Richard Tol then makes an appearance in the comments to the effect "oh, that's right, homogenisation is needed, but maybe the question is whether it is done right. In any event, the more important thing is why people believe Brooker instead of scientists. And it's because of alarmists, you ought to attack them!!"
Yes - as with Curry, he will not call out those who are actively and gleefully distorting (some of) the public's view of the science of climate change, because they actually help with his own pet view that nothing major need be done and everyone who disagrees with him is an idiot. Pathetic.
The best response to this whole spate of climate denialist rubbish about temperature adjustments is from Stephen Mosher (from BEST) at the ATTP blog. (It is much better in a general sense than the Curry post he contributed to.) He makes it clear the frustration that he is finding with "skeptics" who spent years demanding adjustments, and are now spending years criticising adjustments and refusing to believe them. (And also ignoring that on a global scale, using the raw figures makes not much difference anyway.)
Sometimes, people just to be told: if you believe Booker, Delingpole and Monckton, you are simply too stupid to know you are being conned by idiots.