Please, leave the accusations of rhetoric to one side. Your post could equally be described as the tired rhetoric of climatologists but it's unproductive and sh

Please, leave the accusations of rhetoric to one side. Your post could equally be described as the tired rhetoric of climatologists but it's unproductive and shallow. Also. Please think very carefully about what they are saying because it makes no sense. If weather stations are moved today that doesn't change temperatures in the past. Moving individual stations is rare and climate change is by definition a wide area phenomenon. Occasional station moves shouldn't be having any effect on general global trends, yet the data is altered in ways that change long term trends. Recalibration means adjusting your instruments to improve the accuracy of future observations. It isn't a word that lets you arbitrarily change recorded data. By definition, if you believe your instruments were badly calibrated in the past, it means that past data is unreliable and shouldn't be used. When scientists aren't sure a measurement is reliable they're supposed to add confidence intervals. If the dubious data was from the past they should then retract papers built on that data, as the foundational data is no longer trusted. Climatologists never do these things. Temperature data is now being changed for every month in recorded history, every month. There is no scientific justification for that possible. If they can't be sure what the temperature is today, or last week, to such a great extent that historical documents about the past now completely contradict present claims, then they can't predict the future. There is no methodological claim that can change these things. Science requires basic standards or else it is meaningless cultism.