You can’t make this stuff up. NCDC “expected” problems as large as Paul and I found.
Although all estimated values are identified in the USHCN dataset, NCDC’s intent was to use a flagging system that distinguishes between the two types of estimates mentioned above. NCDC intends to fix this issue in the near future.
Did the point Heller raised, and the examples provided for Texas and Kansas, suggest that the problems are larger than government scientists expected?
In other words, they knew that their graphs were bogus all along.
I wonder how long their public relations department spent working up that statement of misdirection?