The temperatures reported by NOAA from those stations began climbing at roughly the rate older whitewash rooftop paints were replaced by modern alked paints, or even acrylics. The older paint kept light at all frequencies OUT of the inside of the units. The modern paints let everything through to heat the equipment.
Even Dr. Hansen finally rejected any data at all from Africa or South America because it was BAD!
Dr. Jones and Dr. Mann worked together to disprove the Medieval Warm Period. The result was they made it look colder "way back when". Then, when they took NASA's data for recent years and combined it with the falsified Medieval Warm Period data on a graph, it made the graph jump from a low temperature to a high temperature in a few centuries.
We know from numerous other studies that the Medieval Warm Period was WARMER than recent decades.
I think Lubchenco should be required to demonstrate that she completed the course of study for the degrees she claimed on her job application.
There are other “sleight of hand” manipulations that they seem to use whenever potentially-contradictory evidence about temperatures during the MWP is cited. For example, a standard tool in their bag of tricks is to dismiss evidence of warmer temps during the MWP at near-Arctic locations such as Greenland by claiming that they were merely “regional” occurrances but not global phenomena. However that does not prevent them from extrapolating from other near-Arctic sources, such as tree ring data from Siberia, and claiming that (notwithstanding their claims to the contrary for evidence from Greenland) such data is indeed a suitable proxy for global phenomena.
(Interestingly, the veracity of the “peer-reviewed” Siberian tree ring data and its interpretation has come under increased scrutiny that threatens to derail such arguments, and in combination with the leaked emails, is beginning to shape up as a damning indictment of the “scientists” involved in formulating that interpretation).