Data needs adjustment. That's not a political statement, it's a scientific statement. Because that data doesn't come down from the mount graven in tablets. It comes from people doing measurements with different instruments in different ways. Weather data — whether surface temps, ocean temps, or even satellite temps — all needs calibration, adjustments for changes over time in technology, and collection practices, and a variety of other tweaks.
That doesn't mean the scientists are evil crooked UN-loving one-worlder atheist conspirators. It means they're doing their job. Even if that job is inconvenient for ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal.
Let me give you an analogy. Theory: we're feeding the cat more than we used to.
It so happens that we have the weight of every serving of food we've ever given the cat. So if we look at the raw data, we can tell if we're feeding the cat more.
But wait — a few years ago, we switched from feeding the cat in the heavy stoneware plates to a cheap plastic bowl. That means that the overall weight we measured, which included the container, is deceptive, because the container weight has changed. We need to adjust the data to make it comparable and trendable.
That's what scientists are doing. They are saying (as this article notes) "Measurement X taken in location A in 1898 can't be treated the same as measurement X taken at the same location in 1998, because instruments changed, time of day the measurement was taken changed, and the conditions at location A changed over time, too."
That doesn't mean we throw up our hands and say "We can't tell, so we might as well just pretend like the most convenient thing is true." We can figure out a lot about how those changes can be compensated for. But we have to do that if we want to treat the historical record with any intelligence.
Even if it makes some people sad. Or not quite as wealthy.
Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data
How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it must be done.
