Originally Posted by
OOfff
This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how science is done. Adjusting data to minimize sampling errors and align data from different sources is extremely common across all fields.
Adjusting temperatures many decades or even a century in the past is acceptable? Those adjustments comprise the bulk of any claimed warming over the small period of time that's being claimed as AGW.
That isn't science; it's anything but science. And I find it disturbing that anyone who has the slightest understanding of science would try to defend what is clearly altering raw data to 'prove' a thesis.