Here is the set up from Climate Audit:
Anthony’s presentation at Roger Pielke Sr’s seminar at UCAR appears to have been well-received. He’s posted some interested online reports at his blog . . .
In response to the criticisms about the failure of sites to meet standards, Lawrimore of NOAA said that they already adjusted for these problems:
“For the USHCN stations being checked by Watts and others, Lawrimore said there are checks to ensure the data is accurate. Some stations are placed on less-than-ideal sites, but he said it’s important to note the impact of those has been analyzed and accounted for.”
I [Steve McIntyre] emailed Lavrimore asking him about whether there were manuals or technical reports assessing the impact of adjustments needed to account for site biases. He replied as follows:
“This reporter misquoted me. Not only did he call me chief of NCDC, but he also misrepresented my discussion of adjustments for factors such as station moves, instrument changes, and changes in observer practices - which are accounted for. I had a 30 minute conversation with him and it appears he stuck together pieces that had no business being together and left out other critical points. Jay”
The emphasis is mine, this statement caused a flash back to the hours I have spent on the phone explaining the depth and breath of a technical issue to local reporters only to be misquoted, or ignored. My guess is most reporters cannot understand the complexity of science issues, a failure to understand how real science works.