MSM reports: The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: luthier

If we stopped using fossil fuels today, without an appropriate substitute and infrastructure many billions would die.

How does produce make it to the grocery stores? How much food is in a large metro at any given time (approx 1 week, perhaps 2 at most). What about all the food that is processed? No fossil fuels no wheaties. No fossil fuels no plastic. No fossil fuels no refregeration (what energy source?).

How would farming be if all of a sudden they could not run their tractors, columbines, could not apply pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer? What would be the decrease in production as a result? What would be the level of spoilage if we could not transport, chill, freeze, process the food we could produce? Billions would die...more billions would riot....

We need a substitute, no doubt, but we do not currently have an acceptable one nor do we have the infrastructure to even make an unacceptable one available.

I agree with your first part you are correct. But we do and have alternatives and have for almost 75 years....and i am only talking about the accepted and proven ways.

We could certainly be tooled and ready in 15 years to have homes with stand alone partial or full solar. The newer wind spirals, bands, and turbines..fossil refuse recycling with husks and such for tractor diesel,..geo thermal, tidal, hydroelectric. They all could be tied only through an emergency backup grid while being stand alone.

We can also use a few strategically placed safe as possible nuke plants for the transition with a plan for safe decomission in the relative future.

There are nothing but solutions we just argue to much to make one.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
They aren't unknowable. We know who is negotiating the climate treaties. My very own colleagues and good friends have been there at the negotiations. I was invited to the Conferences of Parties in Peru this past winter, but couldn't go.

Also, the key here is that it all depends on how real the threat of climate change is.

The scientists and international community have found it to be a very serious, real, and imminent threat.

One that if we do not take serious action now, i.e. climate change mitigation, we will be facing severe consequences globally that will disrupt global systems of all kinds.

Hence, provided what I said is true, the ONLY responsible action to take by both citizens and governments is rigorous action. IF it is all true, then it's not "authoritarian" to take NECESSARY Action. And if some citizens fight against it, it's really them that are in the wrong and are either just being selfish or are uneducated.

I submit to you a basic and poor analogy. It would be like a powerful army is threatening to invade the US and is a real and imminent threat and the government and half of the population says "we need to do something and if we don't prepare now we will be overrun." Then a small portion of the population says "There IS NO army out there and it is totalitarian of you to build up the military and make preparations."

Who would be in the wrong? Obviously the deniers.

And is it responsible for authorities or other citizens to listen to them if to do so means NOT taking necessary actions for the good of us all? No!

Maybe it isn't what most people think of but, no, we cannot know who will wield or what will be done with the authority we grant to any organization.

So, why isn't the conversation ever about climate change mitigation instead of taxation? That would be a very useful discussion.

Tax regime discussions are totally about climate change mitigations.

For example, carbon taxes are quite simply "internalizing" the negative externalities that are NOT usually paid for by companies and organizations. This then makes them have to become more sustainable because they are now finally having to pay for it, as they should have from the beginning. Hence they then begin mitigating their pollution.

Mitigation simply means lowering the contribution to climate change collectively, through everything from policy to technology to economic incentives.

If that was all that we ever did about pollution, we would still be nose deep in it. When I think about mitigation, I think about cleanup.

I would be delighted to hear the details of the various concepts and their projected efficacy.

Thanks for the response.

With climate change, there are two sides: Mitigation and adaptation.

Mitigation is changing human/society behavior to slow and or reverse climate change. That means not adding things.

We cannot "clean up" the greenhouse gases unless we start doing "carbon sequestration," which literally pulls it out of the air. That is discussed but a far out technology.

Therefore most discussions are about lowering further GHG emissions, hence slowing climate change, and also "retaining" as much carbon as possible in the environment. For example, there are "carbon sinks" such as the Amazon jungle which has lots of carbon embedded in the life forms. When it is cut down, or deforested, this too releases lots of GHB.

I'm looking for a good paper with solutions, instead of studies with single solutions. I know it exists.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: luthier

If we stopped using fossil fuels today, without an appropriate substitute and infrastructure many billions would die.

How does produce make it to the grocery stores? How much food is in a large metro at any given time (approx 1 week, perhaps 2 at most). What about all the food that is processed? No fossil fuels no wheaties. No fossil fuels no plastic. No fossil fuels no refregeration (what energy source?).

How would farming be if all of a sudden they could not run their tractors, columbines, could not apply pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer? What would be the decrease in production as a result? What would be the level of spoilage if we could not transport, chill, freeze, process the food we could produce? Billions would die...more billions would riot....

We need a substitute, no doubt, but we do not currently have an acceptable one nor do we have the infrastructure to even make an unacceptable one available.

Absolutely no one excepting some environmental radical groups is saying to stop fossil fuels today.

It is changing the share and proportion of everything to be less fossil-fuel dependent, using a slow shift to more sustainable technologies.

Also, if we do not stop contributing to climate change and also destroying Earth ecosystems, the social, economic, and environmental cost is going to be far higher. This has been analyzed.

So, those who only talk about business needs now or fears of human impact aren't aware of the evidence that it will cost far more in the long run to not address these issues.

Also, climate change is already affecting the lowest income and most vulnerable. To speak about the poor, it is they who will be worst affected due to climate change, as across the world many of them already live on the cusp of destitution. It is the wealthy who will be able to weather climate change.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
They aren't unknowable. We know who is negotiating the climate treaties. My very own colleagues and good friends have been there at the negotiations. I was invited to the Conferences of Parties in Peru this past winter, but couldn't go.

Also, the key here is that it all depends on how real the threat of climate change is.

The scientists and international community have found it to be a very serious, real, and imminent threat.

One that if we do not take serious action now, i.e. climate change mitigation, we will be facing severe consequences globally that will disrupt global systems of all kinds.

Hence, provided what I said is true, the ONLY responsible action to take by both citizens and governments is rigorous action. IF it is all true, then it's not "authoritarian" to take NECESSARY Action. And if some citizens fight against it, it's really them that are in the wrong and are either just being selfish or are uneducated.

I submit to you a basic and poor analogy. It would be like a powerful army is threatening to invade the US and is a real and imminent threat and the government and half of the population says "we need to do something and if we don't prepare now we will be overrun." Then a small portion of the population says "There IS NO army out there and it is totalitarian of you to build up the military and make preparations."

Who would be in the wrong? Obviously the deniers.

And is it responsible for authorities or other citizens to listen to them if to do so means NOT taking necessary actions for the good of us all? No!

Maybe it isn't what most people think of but, no, we cannot know who will wield or what will be done with the authority we grant to any organization.

So, why isn't the conversation ever about climate change mitigation instead of taxation? That would be a very useful discussion.

Tax regime discussions are totally about climate change mitigations.

For example, carbon taxes are quite simply "internalizing" the negative externalities that are NOT usually paid for by companies and organizations. This then makes them have to become more sustainable because they are now finally having to pay for it, as they should have from the beginning. Hence they then begin mitigating their pollution.

Mitigation simply means lowering the contribution to climate change collectively, through everything from policy to technology to economic incentives.

If that was all that we ever did about pollution, we would still be nose deep in it. When I think about mitigation, I think about cleanup.

I would be delighted to hear the details of the various concepts and their projected efficacy.

Thanks for the response.

With climate change, there are two sides: Mitigation and adaptation.

Mitigation is changing human/society behavior to slow and or reverse climate change. That means not adding things.

We cannot "clean up" the greenhouse gases unless we start doing "carbon sequestration," which literally pulls it out of the air. That is discussed but a far out technology.

Therefore most discussions are about lowering further GHG emissions, hence slowing climate change, and also "retaining" as much carbon as possible in the environment. For example, there are "carbon sinks" such as the Amazon jungle which has lots of carbon embedded in the life forms. When it is cut down, or deforested, this too releases lots of GHB.

I'm looking for a good paper with solutions, instead of studies with single solutions. I know it exists.

But we can cleanup carbon dioxide by planting trees, why isn't that the primary topic of discussion? What is the technological hurdle that cannot be traversed, why not just start with that?

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
They aren't unknowable. We know who is negotiating the climate treaties. My very own colleagues and good friends have been there at the negotiations. I was invited to the Conferences of Parties in Peru this past winter, but couldn't go.

Also, the key here is that it all depends on how real the threat of climate change is.

The scientists and international community have found it to be a very serious, real, and imminent threat.

One that if we do not take serious action now, i.e. climate change mitigation, we will be facing severe consequences globally that will disrupt global systems of all kinds.

Hence, provided what I said is true, the ONLY responsible action to take by both citizens and governments is rigorous action. IF it is all true, then it's not "authoritarian" to take NECESSARY Action. And if some citizens fight against it, it's really them that are in the wrong and are either just being selfish or are uneducated.

I submit to you a basic and poor analogy. It would be like a powerful army is threatening to invade the US and is a real and imminent threat and the government and half of the population says "we need to do something and if we don't prepare now we will be overrun." Then a small portion of the population says "There IS NO army out there and it is totalitarian of you to build up the military and make preparations."

Who would be in the wrong? Obviously the deniers.

And is it responsible for authorities or other citizens to listen to them if to do so means NOT taking necessary actions for the good of us all? No!

Maybe it isn't what most people think of but, no, we cannot know who will wield or what will be done with the authority we grant to any organization.

So, why isn't the conversation ever about climate change mitigation instead of taxation? That would be a very useful discussion.

Tax regime discussions are totally about climate change mitigations.

For example, carbon taxes are quite simply "internalizing" the negative externalities that are NOT usually paid for by companies and organizations. This then makes them have to become more sustainable because they are now finally having to pay for it, as they should have from the beginning. Hence they then begin mitigating their pollution.

Mitigation simply means lowering the contribution to climate change collectively, through everything from policy to technology to economic incentives.

If that was all that we ever did about pollution, we would still be nose deep in it. When I think about mitigation, I think about cleanup.

I would be delighted to hear the details of the various concepts and their projected efficacy.

Thanks for the response.

With climate change, there are two sides: Mitigation and adaptation.

Mitigation is changing human/society behavior to slow and or reverse climate change. That means not adding things.

We cannot "clean up" the greenhouse gases unless we start doing "carbon sequestration," which literally pulls it out of the air. That is discussed but a far out technology.

Therefore most discussions are about lowering further GHG emissions, hence slowing climate change, and also "retaining" as much carbon as possible in the environment. For example, there are "carbon sinks" such as the Amazon jungle which has lots of carbon embedded in the life forms. When it is cut down, or deforested, this too releases lots of GHB.

I'm looking for a good paper with solutions, instead of studies with single solutions. I know it exists.

But we can cleanup carbon dioxide by planting trees, why isn't that the primary topic of discussion? What is the technological hurdle that cannot be traversed, why not just start with that?

Because that would not capture nearly enough nor fast enough.

It doesn't mean it isn't part of the solution. I.e. long term reforestation. But we need action now, not very slow carbon sequestration.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Because that would not capture nearly enough nor fast enough.

It doesn't mean it isn't part of the solution. I.e. long term reforestation. But we need action now, not very slow carbon sequestration.

Forgive my failure to fully comprehend what the difference between slowly consuming a gas and slowly reducing its production is. It seems like they are both desirable goals and neither will result in fast change, why ignore the first most obvious action and jump right into the latter with both feet and a bag over our heads?

a reply to: ketsuko

There is a hell of a lot worse chemistry entering our ecosystem than birth control pills. If birth control pills were the only thing we were doing wrong, there wouldn't be much of a problem at all. Take every medicine we make and the chemistry they use in agriculture and preservatives in foods and add it together. That total is more destructive than a bunch of oil spills. Add all the plastics pollution around the world, both in manufacture of it and the improper disposal of it and you get the picture.

The smoke coming out of our furnaces is small compared to the changing of chemistry we are doing. We are destroying the earths ability to repair our impact on the environment.

But sorry OP, this is off topic.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: greencmp

Yes, this is very encouraging to see in the MSM.

There's no shortage of MSM sources adding to the massive, stinking pile of denier (I say denier purposefully because man-made climate change deniers do not deserve the label skeptic) BS.

The Daily Telegraph (OP source)
The Daily Mail
The Wall Street Journal
Forbes
FOX News

This is just more of the same, proven false by the way, in a previous thread.

Just out of curiosity, as an anarcho-communist, do you have any reservations about the potential abuse of the powers which you are so willing to grant to a completely unknown (and indeed unknowable) group of people?

They aren't unknowable. We know who is negotiating the climate treaties. My very own colleagues and good friends have been there at the negotiations. I was invited to the Conferences of Parties in Peru this past winter, but couldn't go.

Also, the key here is that it all depends on how real the threat of climate change is.

The scientists and international community have found it to be a very serious, real, and imminent threat.

One that if we do not take serious action now, i.e. climate change mitigation, we will be facing severe consequences globally that will disrupt global systems of all kinds.

Hence, provided what I said is true, the ONLY responsible action to take by both citizens and governments is rigorous action. IF it is all true, then it's not "authoritarian" to take NECESSARY Action. And if some citizens fight against it, it's really them that are in the wrong and are either just being selfish or are uneducated.

I submit to you a basic and poor analogy. It would be like a powerful army is threatening to invade the US and is a real and imminent threat and the government and half of the population says "we need to do something and if we don't prepare now we will be overrun." Then a small portion of the population says "There IS NO army out there and it is totalitarian of you to build up the military and make preparations."

Who would be in the wrong? Obviously the deniers.

And is it responsible for authorities or other citizens to listen to them if to do so means NOT taking necessary actions for the good of us all? No!

This is where we differ greatly. You cant force people to change. The carbon tax issue is a scam and has the potential for even more dammage and liberty destruction. What we need to do is provide massive tax breaks for companies who can create real and confirmed artifacts that solve problems. Almost every study now a days has motivation behind from politics and there funding. It takes a much more dilligent fact checker than most are wilking to do.

I will say almost all the comments have been about peoples "gut" feeling and not peer reviewed science we can get.

I get your point.

But unfortunately, it has been discussed and examined and we now know that if rigorous change doesn't happen now, it will be too late. We can't wait 20-30 years. That's what the evidence shows.

So it has to be mixture of economic incentives like you are saying to real policy action now.

Again, for those who say "don't force anyone to do anything" it's like saying "Oh you say there is an imminent asteroid incoming that may wipe out millions? And you want to declare emergency and take action? Totalitarian!!"

Do you see what I mean?

Bear with me. There ARE things that can happen in our reality that take immediate action, even if some citizens don't like it.

Stalin didn't need to ask everyone to mobilize the military further when Hitler invaded...

Again what you are saying is dangerous and so is the reasoning.

You would have to go back to your logic, ethics, and philosophy to determine if you are correct. Most people would agree empericist laid out the scientific method. Of those John Locke speaks extensively on the subjects os liberty which go hand in hand with justice and scientific method.

The danger of being scared into a decision far outweighs safety because of how easily and how well ot works. For all you 911 conspiracy people case in point. One of Americas greatest first scientists B. Franklin warned about it clearly.

The only moral choice is and i dare you to use actual logic, ethics or philosophy, to counter not a gut feeling for those that will die if you are right. You can even use Marx its fine I think he is misunderstood.

There is never an outcome if you do a logic equation were forcing scared people to do something is the better choice. You have to give them the choice to fail or not. Even if it means they die.

Because the danger of thinking you can control peoples thinking because what ypu think is right (even if it is) is more dangerous as a precendent. Eventually someone will manipulate that equation with force. Its just a fact through logic not the metaphorical kind but the one all the scientists used to create the system we have now.
Its no small thing the social scientists, philosophers, engineers, and hard science people who created modern society believed strongly in liberty. Taking away liberty is taking away justice is taking away science.
The only way i see is with local public support and local laws voted by the people and insentives for industry to create safer technology.

But hey no one cares about that crap anymore anyway.

It is dangerous.

But my fundamental point is correct.

Using logic and ethics, we must make such decisions based on evidence, one, and how clear and present a danger is.

Again, no person nor government can nor needs to wait to respond if a threat is great enough. It's quite simply irresponsible and even insane.

So the clear and present nature must be based on evidence.

I must say to you that nobody is predicting this clear and present threat of climate change on "gut feelings." It is based on hordes of scientific and economic studies, as well as trajectories.

If we stay on the "business as usual" pathway, not taking rigorous action now, we are going to have severe consequences in 30-40 years. The social, economic, and environmental cost of not taking action has already been predicted to be FAR higher than taking action. That's what people aren't understanding.

So again, if that is true, then it is purely irresponsible to not take action.

And those who don't want to shouldn't dictate responsible action.

Remember if a man is trying to attack both of us I don't need to ask you to respond.

luthier

Right but thats not the same at all. What you are referring to is a direct threat. It is also discussed lengethly by Locke. What the government can do vs a citizen has different ethical and moral responsibility. Also there is no direct threat even if we are doomed. It is the people around you consuming that are the problem accept you focus on carbon emissions which are a nanopart of the problem and inconsiquential in

edit on 9-2-2015 by luthier because: sp

a reply to: greencmp

Me stating what something is or in that instance, what it isn't doesn't mean I describe myself that way.

How are you so drastically misunderstanding everything I say?

I'm not saying only government can save the planet, I'm asking you what governments will do when the shtf with the climate. Pack up and go or slap us in chains?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: greencmp

Me stating what something is or in that instance, what it isn't doesn't mean I describe myself that way.

How are you so drastically misunderstanding everything I say?

I'm not saying only government can save the planet, I'm asking you what governments will do when the shtf with the climate. Pack up and go or slap us in chains?

No worries, it was over a year ago and I vaguely remembered a discussion about how anarcho-communists and anarcho-capitalists could get along just fine if the collectivism was at a small enough scale and had no greater ambitions.

Ah, I see. Hypothetically, if the world began to actually fall apart, I think that government would most likely pack up and go just like HP or Apple would. After all, the planet is dying, what use is there in subjugating the populace?

media.fyre.co...

a reply to: greencmp

The planet isn't going to die. It will (by end of the century most likely) become increasingly to exceedingly difficult for us and most other animals to live on it, not impossible for a long, long time yet (by human concept of time). Look at us now fighting over abundant resources, what happens when they get scarce or inaccessible? Governments will just go away? I don't think so.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: greencmp

The planet isn't going to die. It will (by end of the century most likely) become increasingly to exceedingly difficult for us and most other animals to live on it, not impossible for a long, long time yet (by human concept of time). Look at us now fighting over abundant resources, what happens when they get scarce or inaccessible? Governments will just go away? I don't think so.

Not going to happen. The planet is not going to die for millions of years until the Sun starts to go Nova. However, within a very short period of time (on a galactic global scale) humans will be extinct. So those of you who are worried about humans killing the planet can relax.

Within less than 50 years the global population will begin a steep decline naturally. These projections are based on the current trend in birth rates world wide. If the population trends continue, the population will increase slowly for the next 50 years and then begin a precipitous decline. Projections for human extinction through low birth rates are anywhere from 500-700 years. Of course, Japan is expected to go extinct within 100 years, as are many highly industrialized countries.

Once humans are extinct, the earth will heal itself.

I forsee the birth rates continuing on the current trend levels (headed toward extinction within 700 years)
Why?
Robotics are making the need for humans more and more obsolete.
Educated women are choosing to have very few babies.
As life improves in general through the use in robotics, more and more people will choose to have no or one child, two will be a luxury and considered gauche.
As a practical matter with robotics the world needs fewer humans and the human race is self correcting on that trend.

Once we reach singularity, AI will have no use for humans except as pets or maybe a handful to do what machines can not, or as zoo type creatures. AI will then see to it that our needs for companionship, sex and love are met by robots if the AI chooses to be kind or is programmed to pity humans.
Already there are quite lifelike sexbots for sale for around $12,000 in Japan, these will only get better until humans, eventually choose their perfect programmed love over a real human.
Further accelerating the current decline in birth rates.

I do not think this is science fiction, even Stephen Hawking thinks this is a real possibility,
human extinction through AI
the end of the humanoid period
just as the Jurassic period ended
and the rise of the AI period

So those of you who are excessively worried about humans despoiling the planet, take heart,
humans will be extinct within a relatively short (in global) time
and the earth can heal itself

In the meantime, we ARE being played by the government with lies about the environment in the US (although true about China) and just using it as an excuse for totalitarian and repressive measures to be taken to control the little people and an excuse through carbon tax to extort money from those who can least afford it, to give to the political elite class through corrupt business deals.

Before you ask: proofs for human extinction are in my replies in other threads. The Mods forbade me from keeping on posting them. Said I have posted the same proofs one too many times.

a reply to: grandmakdw

How did you get two stars for your reading comprehension failure? My first sentence was "The planet ISN'T going to die.".

a reply to: Kali74
I know you said the planet wasn't going to die.

I was really responding to those who think the planet is going to die.

I was agreeing with you on that particular statement, but in a sort of backwards way.

My point is, humans won't be the destruction of the environment, we will be extinct long before we can accomplish that.

Sorry for the poor expression of ideas. I'm sitting in a hospital room with my sick Mom, passing the time away and get distracted, not my usual repartee.

originally posted by: infinityorder

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
No they do not focus only on the last couple decades solely.

The actual scientists focus on the last 800 years, then time since the Industrial Revolution, and then yes recent times.

Also, yes statistics can be manipulated, but aren't always.

It always sounds like people that are deniers haven't really read the fundamental main science papers. These science papers very specifically address virtually all counter points, including your guys' claim that we are just in a natural cycle. All of the climate scientists know that there are natural cycles, better than everyone on here.

They very specifically state that natural cycles, sun spot cycles, natural change, DO NOT account for all of the change we are seen, and they have proven that statistically. This is the point.

The natural cycle argument needs to die, it's been dealt mortal blows several times.

If they focused on the last 800 years they would have factored the medieval warm period, where wine grapes were grown in england...tell me how many wine grapes can be grown in England today?

If you want to be actually more serious about this question:

www.realclimate.org...

nce 1977, a further 200 or so vineyards have opened (currently 400 and counting) and they cover a much more extensive area than the recorded medieval vineyards, extending out to Cornwall, and up to Lancashire and Yorkshire where the (currently) most northerly commercial vineyard sits. So with the sole exception of one ‘rather improbably’ located 12th Century Scottish vineyard (and strictly speaking that doesn’t count, it not being in England ‘n’ all…), English vineyards have almost certainly exceeded the extent of medieval cultivation. And I hear (from normally reliable sources) they are actually producing a pretty decent selection of white wines. - See more at: www.realclimate.org...

And the Medieval Warm Period was not global.

Exactly..
It was much warmer then than now.....

Thanks for saying anyone not in climate science can't undeslrstand the science.

If you aren't in auto mechanics you can't repair cars.

Sure you can repair cars. Here's what you can't do. Say that you're a backyard mechanic and then spout literally libelous baloney how the Chief Engine Scientist of Daimler-Benz and hundreds of other engine PhD experts who have worked on it for a lifetime are intentionally cheating at absolutely everything, and lying paid off (without any evidence) tools of radical Marxists who for who knows what reasons are suppressing the well-known carburetor which runs on 100% water and makes no smog.

Even string theory, quantum physics and astrophysics can be understood by a large percentage of folks with any sense.

Ha ha ha ha ha! Yeah the "good ol common sense" makes somebody qualified to judge advanced cutting-edge physics!

Do not condescend to me. I bet my IQ and science education trump yours, while you try to tell me I am not smart enough to understand a rudimentary subject like climate change.

You probably could. If you spend a few years in graduate school and a postdoc and maybe then you might be qualified to look at the methodological flaws and make improvement for suggestions in the peer-reviewed literature.

a reply to: grandmakdw

I hope your Mom gets better soon.

a reply to: Kali74

Thanks!

Love ATS, great way to keep my mind busy while sitting in a mind numbing environment. A hospital room with the little beeps and swoosh sounds to keep me company.
Even if I disagree with my friends on ATS, which is often, you are all still my friends, thanks for the company.

a reply to: infinityorder

Al Gore? Is that you?

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
When a corporation makes "adjustments" to its data and presents it to the shareholders, somebody gets criminal charges brought against them.
Somehow climate scientists get a free pass for "fiddling" with their data. That is usually called fraud.

In actual truth, corporations always make adjustments to reported earnings and assets to make them more reliable and authentically useful as often the raw numbers can be misleading. There are standards for doing so and they are audited and will be penalized if they do NOT do that.

The adjustments are of course necessary because of the need to accommodate known properties and flaws of measurement systems and their details are all public.

What about the Berkeley Earth project? A previously skeptical non-climate professor took a major research project to figure it out and re-estimate everything from scratch. (one of multiple worldwide independent groups). His conclusions: the climatologists were right all along, and the attribution to human greenhouse gases is extremely strong and stronger than the IPCC's conclusions.