[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

You just see its Bret and ignore thata it's a university of Australia study.
Not like any left leaning news out lest is going to expose beliver mistakes.

The problem is not (only) Breitbart's filtering; Breitibartfast often seems to report about a fictitious planet of their own creation. But HadCRUT4 data exists and so does John McLean.
The problem is that it isn't news.

I finally got around to searching for HadCRUT4 and lo and behold, the whole analysis and debunking has been done months ago. There's a problem with HadCRUT4 data - but it isn't deliberate skewing of data (either way).

A detailed study here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...hadcrut4-data/

HadCRUT4 global temperature anomalies were assessed to determine the impact of varying data coverage and noise as described by McLean. It is recognized that sparser data coverage and increased noise have influenced interannual HadCRUT4 temperature anomalies pre-1950.

Interannual temperature spikes, both warm and cold, increase in frequency during the Questionable Data timeframe pre-1950. While several of these spikes may be associated with El Nino and La Nina events, others may be the result of increased noise within the data. This period of questionable data, especially the cluster of warm and cold spikes from 1880 to 1920, warrants further study.

The 1878 warm temperature spike is the most significant interannual temperature anomaly over the past 160 years. The temperature amplitude is almost double in magnitude over all other temperature amplitude spikes. This recorded temperature outlier is most likely erroneously high due to sparse global coverage and increased data noise.

Warm and cold spike maximums do not demonstrate any obvious increasing or decreasing trends from 1880 to present day, except for 1878. The recent 1998 and 2016 warm spikes are within one standard deviation of past warm spikes.

The HadCRUT4 global data pre-1950 may contain useful information but should be used with caution with an understanding that increases in noise due to poor data sampling may create false or enhanced temperature anomalies.

So the data is less reliable pre 1950 (a well known fact).
It also is particularly unreliable around the 1880s, continuing up to the 1920.
Why does that not surprise me...

Oh, but John McLean is a professor, no?
https://www.crikey.com.au/2014/01/13...inked-fairfax/

On his website McLean describes himself as a "computer consultant and occasional travel photographer" ... [with] no verifiable scientific qualifications

Bye bye mr Australian pie...