OK have time now. I do know the reasons they give. But again we need to think carefully about this and not just blindly say it's OK because they have some cleve

OK have time now. I do know the reasons they give. But again we need to think carefully about this and not just blindly say it's OK because they have some clever sounding justification. Observation 1: climatologists don't seem to care about raw data quality at all. Real scientists understand that high quality measurements are important and work hard to improve them. It's expensive and slow but it's gotta be done. Physics, cosmology are good examples of that. They need the data, they raise the money and make it happen. Climatologists rely on volunteers and random weather stations run for other reasons to collect their data. It would be easy to collect their own data to a high standard because we're only talking about thermometers here, but they never do. Instead they gather data which they know is corrupted by large biases, and then try to "fix" it. But you can't turn corrupted and biased data into clean data by adjusting it. That is always scientific fraud and for good reasons: it's too easy to fool yourself into fixing the data to reflect your theory, instead of the theory being derived from the data. Observation 2: The adjustments create almost all the reported warming in the USA! Think about that for a second. Over half of claimed global warming in the USA is created via one single administrative adjustment (TOBS), simply because climatologists couldn't be bothered asking a subset of the weather stations to stick with a consistent time of day. Observation 3: It turns out some people actually do care about data quality - climate change skeptics. After they noticed how crap the weather station network was they ran to Congress and complained especially about urban heat bias and other problems. Because it's obvious to everyone that this situation is absurd, Congress tried to salvage it by funding a brand spanking new weather station network, the US CRN: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/1/0 https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-tempera... Climatologists don't use it perhaps because it shows no warming whatsoever in the USA for the entire time it has existed, nearly 17 years now. That should be impossible, right? This is why it's so important to think carefully before just linking to their explanations: 1. They use garbage quality data that by their own telling is riven by biases as large as the ones they're trying to measure. 2. They didn't make any effort to improve this situation. 3. Other people did it for them and global warming can no longer be seen in the new higher quality data. Any rational person would do a double take at this state of affairs.