Scientists change raw data all the time.by all the time I mean,...

Scientists change raw data all the time.

by all the time I mean, every second of every day there is a scientist changing raw data.

plumbers, carpenters, doctors, pharmacists, EVERYONE changes raw data daily.


there is NO controversy in the phrase "We find that when correcting for interannual variability"


if your counter-argument is based ONLY on some vague, undefined appeal that this sentence is evidence that they're fudging the numbers then you are MANIFESTLY unqualified to talk about anything scientific.


adjusting data for well known events is so unbelievably commonplace and standard practice that NO ONE would argue that it's evidence for bias.


for example,


the world warmed by 20 degrees last year, except when you correct for Farenheit to Celcius conversion.

YOU'RE FUDGING THE NUMBERS!!!!!


Correcting for drug selectivity in males with a BMI over 25, you need 150 milligrams of such and such drug

YOU'RE FUDGING THE NUMBERS!!!


Unemployment in youths decreased from February to May over the previous period.... woops, sorry! it was actually the same since we forgot to incorporate the natural tendency for youths to go back to school at the start of the year (after holidays) and therefore there are fewer of them looking for work

YOU'RE FUDGING THE NUMBERS!!!


There were 20 tornadoes through the mid-west! This is evidence that climate change is happening. Actually the tornadoes were in June (NOT JANUARY) and this is perfectly within the normal range.

YOU'RE FUDGING THE NUMBERS!!!



Instead of just frothing that their corrections are evidence for bias, why don't you STUDY their corrections, ANALYSE whether they were appropriately applied and then argue either,

1/ the corrections for natural variability were well established and appropriately applied

or

2/ SHOW how the corrections were actually not appropriate in this instance and that if they applied the proper data processing, they would have found a different result



If you actually did this instead of just pissing and moaning all the time, it would show that your interest in the topic MATCHES the level of rhetoric you're applying.