jo4hn wrote:
Swingman wrote:
jo4hn wrote:

To all readers: look at that website anyway. Lots of information
that is quite understandable without a lot of science background.

Agreed ... damned trouble is it seems everyone has an agenda of some
sort, making any data, and any modeling using same, subject to
suspicion.

All temperature data is massaged, supposedly to reduce error
inherent in historical readings, but I'm personally, and simply, at
the point of not trusting those doing the "massaging", and there is
ample evidence to back up that skepticism.

What should have been an age of enlightenment has demonstrably turned
into and age of skepticism and suspicion.

IOW, I've been right all along ... g

Massaging in science is removing wild points (or spikes), conversion
from data numbers to engineering/science values, applying instrument
calibration values, and the like. Fraud is very rare (Fox rants
notwithstanding), since it will be found out by ones peers.

Massaging data is not the issue. Taking a short term item of noise in a
long term cycle and claiming that your model projects the long term trend is
the problem. The climate cycle is at least 120,000 years, the models that
purport to project that cycle are working on 40 years of data. See the
problem?