There are some amazing difference between NOAA’s rather cavalier data “adjustments” and data management in the regulated communities. I started in a research lab in 1966 as a budding freshman chemistry major with the opportunity to do real research in organic chemistry, along with washing dishes. The rules were that I wrote a description of what I planned to d0, what I actually did and included all pertinent data. Erasures and data alterations were not allowed. You could strike through an error, correct it and initial the correction. My lab notebooks were reviewed and signed by someone else periodically. In the remainder of my career, records were not changed. Data weren’t continuously adjusted. I’ve terminated a couple of people for such actions.
I spent 3 decades managing environmental records of all types. I’ve spent a number of years signing certifications of data and reports that started with “I certify under penalty of law…” In my last position, I managed continuous data from about 500 generators in a several states. In my world you could correct obvious errors but you didn’t get the luxury of adjusting your data continuously.
We’ve been watching the climate experts doing, it seems, just the opposite. NOAA’s new data set and announcement of the disappearance of the pause seems to be an egregious example of data manipulation. Historical data are historical data. They shouldn’t be subject to change. If the data aren’t suitable for making your case, tough.
These scientists, in my opinion, are breaking long standing rules. In addition, their work has serious implications on the economy and people’s lives. I’d like to see their data and reports with signatures in a block starting “Under penalty of law…”