Right. There are exceptions. I was hoping that the participants of this thread would understand that. But … I hoped too much.
Show the definitive science and validation of the technique used to make this “adjustment”. Show that it is correct under all conditions for which the “adjusted” measurement will be used. After that…Show the controls that are used to ensure that the validated “adjustment” technique is performed correctly.
Ish why can’t these people simply say “we don’t know” and “man may be contributing to global warming but we have no basis for even attempting to say how much”?
Adjustments are neither positive nor negative. Scientists adjust data all the time. Hopefully they provide a good rationale and explanation of the method.
I was on a field trial recently and had to use proxy data due to a loss of gauges. The proxy data had to be adjusted since it was not a direct measurement. It worked fine.
We are talking about a technique that is supposedly being used in every city where temperature data is collected for use in global warming calculations… not your “field trial”.
I made that same point.
That IS the point.
That is also the most difficult thing to prove but is done so in reputable research where the results will guide public policy or safety of life issues. I’m not taking it for granted.