It was a report with Hansen as co-author that said the weather stations across the US were in a bad state and deteriorating... perhaps to justify tampering significantly with the data?
By the way, with reference to JB's post of the Darwin data (there is quite a discussion on this over at Watts Up With That) one wonders just how widespread this conspiracy is and who aware other climatologists are of the real problem with the "value added" data.
How many climatologists who have previously been adherents of the AGW theory were so because they accepted the legitimacy of the "value added" data set? How many now have some serous doubts? Many ought to be furious that they have been duped along with most others.
But just how big a conspiracy is it? How many does it take to corrupt the worlds weather data?
Not many it would seem.
The New Zealand data which, in the raw showed no long term warming, in "value added" data graphed by Dr Jim Salinger we see the dramatic warming effect as seen here in the Darwin data.
Dr Salinger started this graph when he was .... wait for it.... at the UEA. I assume that since then all anyone has down is continue to feed in raw data and crank the handle.
I begin to suspect we will find this is a very small cottery of interlinked scientists from the UEA, GISS and NASA who have manipulated the totality of the instrumental record as well as the proxy record and all without other scientists questioning peer reviewed reports they have then used themselves.
I suppose we might discover this by searching the references to the IPCC reports and any reports by this group of scientists.
I suspect the big shocker isn't that scientists have "tampered" with data but that they have been found out not by climatologists as deep into the field as they are but what they choose to regard as amateurs on the outside and that was the reason for their fear of the FOIAs... none of the scientific community proved as much trouble to them as the two Ms.