I understand that raw data needs to be adjusted, compensated, homogenized, discarded, etc. for a variety of valid scientific reasons to try to come up with something that could be informative. I also recognize that this process is subjective and relies upon expertise and informed judgement in the particular area(s).
The real point I have is that this process in climate science invariably ends up with more warming, more melting, more sea level rise, etc. than the raw data shows. And that's just in cases where the raw data is available.
That happening by chance alone is extremely unlikely IMO. It's like a conservative judge finding 100/100 conservative accused innocent and 100/100 liberal accused guilty. Any reasonable person would be skeptical of the objectiveness of the judge. Sure it may be in fact true that each cases was judged only on its merits but I'm fairly certain there would be cause for a review and a thorough one at that.
All data is "manipulated." The innocuous act of taking data at a particular time and place is applying a filter to it. If the person writing this thinks that there is something wrong with the way the data was processed, then he should write a paper and demonstrate the correct way of doing it.
In fact the person writing the article is doing all sorts of data "manipulation", but they have already published for a large non-expert audience without benefit of peer review.
EDIT for Maxx: Instead of providing "dozens of links" that you claim you can do, why don't you provide one credible link? If temperatures are indeed being "fabricated" as you claim, wouldn't that be big news in scientific circles? Why aren't there papers that point this out? It seems to me that what you have is a link to a website that is a little more than a cartoon, and a lot of unsupported innuendo.
As someone that has been caught lying on this site multiple times, you're going to have to do a lot more than that to convince rational people.
You can't, they've been fiddling the figures for so long now, no one knows what the heck the real average global temperatures are. Colder would seem to be the likely truth though.
The data tampering has been massive. Past temperatures have been reduced and current temperatures have been manipulated upward to try and support the Warmists claims that modern warming was somehow unusual and man-made.
Fabricating Fake Temperatures
http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-f...
I could post dozens of links on this but the above is a good summary.
Laws have been broken, fraud has been committed on the world, hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted, children have been frightened and propagandized, there are a lot of Climate Cult leaders that need to be brought to justice.
-----------------------
Study Shows Many Scientists Manipulate Results
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ado...
-----------------------
And how exactly have they manipulated the data?
It seems from the website that you linked to that the term ‘manipulate’ means ‘my ESTIMATES don’t fit with real world OBSERVATIONS therefore the observations are false’.
I know the site is a bit awkward to follow but did you understand the gist of what he’s done and what the futility of it?
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/shepherd-2012---adjusted-antarctic-data-261.php
