1936 is probably the most noticed because it was a US record but we hear stories about interesting interpolation techniques happening at the poles showing that the poles are warming. We hear about time of observation bias adjustments that provide a temperature increase of +1.4°F all by themselves. Then CRU "lost" the data. Now some stations are on "autopilot" and the scientists have not noticed. Same with the repeated month (October?) that was spotted first by the sceptics. What about the Harry Readme file? There were all kinds of comments about the poor state of the temperature data.
The list goes on and on. How much trust is lost by such things?
EDIT @ Hey Dook: When will you realise that your constant appeals to authority are not logically sound? It is one of Aristotle's logical fallacies. You do not even believe it yourself. Firstly, would you believe a NAS member on anything connected with the climate? Professor Richard Lindzen for instance? I thought not. Secondly, did you believe Richard Nixon when he said that there will be no whitewash at the White House? He would know, he was the president. How could anyone know better than he? So you do not believe in argumentum ad vericundiam why should we?
They aren't and he didn't - and after all this time, you still cannot explain the things you present as evidence or understand the reason that the temperature in 1936 - whether for the US or the world - is irrelevant.
Don't you think that by now you should have had at least one original thought or idea of your own? Maybe you just have no aptitude for the whole "skepticism thing."
=====
Graphicconception --
>>When will you realise that your constant appeals to authority are not logically sound?<<
Show us one temperature reading from any climate station anywhere in the world ever used by any climate scientist that has been fraudulently manipulated – or one scientific test indicating that the warming trend for the last 17 years is not the same as the trend for the preceding 30 years.
Oh, yeah – and “because somebody says so” is an appeal to authority - which for Deniers almost universally means appeal to a false authority.
=====
edit --
>>Phil Jones has admitted to it.<<
No, he hasn't. And, why would he since it never happened?
The question is why you continue to lie, especially about really stupid things that are easily fact-checked. That is a rhetorical question of course, since you choose only to listen to liars.
They are in love with the press releases that say warmest month/year/day on record.
Like the Medieval Warm Period, they want to get rid of the Dust Bowl.
I will believe top scientists, such as those in the NAS, before I even bother to waste time trying to decipher a gibberish graph lifted mindlessly by you from some crapola anti-science liar blog. Wikipedia, being generally consistent with science, and inconsistent with ignorant anti-science mish mash, I will go with Wikipedia, and the first graph on this page here, which almost any person who didn't flunk out of high school can easily understand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...
Stick with your Goebbels obsession quotes, without looking in the mirror, and stop laughably trying to pretend you understand the first thing about high school math or science (or anything else in High School, such as history: 1936 was "before" the "Industrial Age" ?!! As you like to say, almost much as the word Goebbels: Ha!Ha!Ha! Which of your F-graded tests in history did you pull that from?)
Makes one wonder how many past temperatures were "never" recorded? They get all excited about "highest temperatures ever recorded" and seem as though science has it figured out when, in fact, they have absolutely no clue!
People who confuse weather and climate, and who know better, do so at their own convenience and for their own reasons with a purpose.
Gary F. "show us one temperature that has been fraudulently manipulated"
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/coop/coop.h...
http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-fake-temperatures.html
It has been stated on this site many times that the hottest month temperature was in 1936. This was before Al Gore's Industrial Age and CO2 levels were lower than they are today. So many of the greenies on this site state that this was only the US and not the whole world, thus not worthy of discussion. Well then, if it was so insignificant and valueless, why did Jimmy have to alter them? Why would any scientist risk his credibility to alter meaningless data?
