This is now the second, third and fourth time you're arguing with arguments I never actually made. I'm not sure it's worth continuing with this because you don'

This is now the second, third and fourth time you're arguing with arguments I never actually made. I'm not sure it's worth continuing with this because you don't seem to be accurately reading what I write. I said (again, quite clearly) that there are probably 100 or fewer climatologists actively producing aggregated temperature datasets, not 100 climatologists in total. There are many climatologists, but they all use the same set of temperature time series produced by a relatively small group. And that makes sense. Collecting all the data is a lot of work. You have to maintain relationships with many different meteorological agencies, potentially spend lots of time typing in numbers read from old log books, etc. It'd be odd if that work were duplicated by every person who wanted to explore climate data. Then you go off and talk about how there's consensus that CO2 could lead to global warming, which is nothing I've disagreed with at any point. CO2 could cause that, yes, but how much effect it is actually having in practice is definitely not in agreement, as the numerous different estimates for ECS show. "You're claiming all of that work is discredited because someone reviewed old data and said "this measurement was odd and their notes are bad; they probably left the thermometer in the sun. Let's throw out this data point"." Argh, no. I am explicitly not claiming that, I'm claiming the opposite. Faced with measurements they believe are erroneous they do not throw out the data. That would be a scientific thing to do. Instead what they do is keep it, but then apply a large range of "fixes" to it, and present the "fixed" data as if it were the original recordings. This is bad news because actually in the original data no warming is visible, and the trend they are claiming is really happening only appears after their model-driven adjustments. In other words, when observed data doesn't match the theory, the theory triumphs and observed data is modified. "It's simple: you are spreading misinformation. Stop it." Someone who can't even correctly understand the things I'm writing is in no position to claim other people are spreading misinformation. None of the points I've responded to in this thread were actually rebuttals to anything I've said!