I would certainly rather read original data than data that had been manipulated (for whatever reason) by someone or organisation that had a particular belief about what that data might indicate.
Now, wouldn't we be surprised if an organisation manipulated data and the new data showed results 'contrary' to their belief?
Removing whole stations of data cannot be justified ------------- it reeks of manipulation - with an agenda.
But, by the way you think ------------------ it must be true and it must be justified --------- after all, it is an 'authority' that is doing it.
Now, again - what is it you are saying?
Are you saying they didn't remove Bourke?
Are you saying they did remove Bourke, but there was good reason?
Are you saying that the data was accurate, but, because it showed a cooling, they removed it?
Just where is the agenda is all this climate change business?
I would have thought that some organisations like BOM should have fairly pure agendum -- but, it appears not.
Clearly they have been 'tainted' - the question is 'why'?
In issues like AGW - the search for truth should begin at the beginning - what is the agenda? There you will find the seeds that grew the plant.
Climate changers are like a religious mob ----------- why would you start a religion?
