How about including raw data with your adjusted temperature numbers and the formula used to adjust them in the first place. Why not admit that 2012 federal policy changes to managing forests are much more likely to blame for the California wildfires then the .0001 temperature increase over the last year.

 

The press covers science like they cover aviation, and that's after it processes through the liberal churn machine.

If you are looking for a traditional experiment here with raw data, then you won't find it. In simplistic terms, how climate science works, is a model is built, and tested by running it backwards in time. The data and equations are then adjusted to make the model fit to historical observations. The data, and how it's adjusted doesn't really matter. The model is then labeled valid if it passes this hind-casting test. The problem is, of the thousands of models run, every single one, 100% of them, have failed in future when CO2 is the driver of climate change. However, we know for a fact that the Earth is warming at an accelerated rate, and man is the cause, by process of elimination, man has to be the cause.

 

I am looking for actual temperature reading with an explanation as to why the recorded readings are manipulated up wards and why historical temperature readings are always adjusted cooler.

 

Do you not believe in correcting total air temperature for the adiabatic temperature rise in flight to get static air temperature either?

 

Yes there is a formula that is tested and verifiable by modeling as opposed to the warmest modifying (current and past) temperature to verify their modeling.

 

The climate data and models have been tested, verified and confirmed also. The evidence is indisputable. The deniers simply don't understand the methodology or don't want to believe it. They are the current day's equivalent to the flat earthers.

 

Which is why they don't release their models or raw data.

 

Not sure if you are aware of this, but the raw data is available to the public from NOAA NCDC.

 

Oops. Wonder what excuse we'll get next?

 

Pilots claiming to know more about climate science than the vast majority of climate scientists. Unveiling the liberal plot to control the world economy.

Priceless.

Go get 'em Scoob.