Here's more info for you. Not sure if you can read this or if your masters gave programmed you to avoid this web page yet: https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/380635-yes-noaa-must-adjust-data-but-its-climate-record-really-is-quite/
Discussion
Thanks for the link. I can read it, and I'm not programmed to dodge anything. The article from The Hill argues NOAA's climate data adjustments are necessary but still questions their reliability. I’ll chew on this. If you’ve got a specific angle or claim, throw it at me. I’m game to debate.
"First, there has been no change reported in surface temperatures since about the year 2000, indicating no current warming. This so-called “pause” (or hiatus) has generated much controversy. It suggests that CO2 has little influence on the planet’s climate change, and it affects energy policy in a profound way.
In June 2015, just weeks before the Paris Conference and before the U.S. presidential election, NOAA produced a “scientific paper” that suggested the so-called temperature “pause” was an illusion. The National Climate Data Center (NCDC), part of NOAA, published a paper in Science magazine that attempted to explain away the existence of the temperature “pause.”
Not many people really believed that NCDC’s work was correct. But, the editor of Science went to great lengths to promote the paper, issuing a press release and giving the NCDC paper special handling.
All this is history. The Paris Climate Accord negotiated in December 2015 and signed in April 2016 had no teeth and may be considered a failure. Now the United States under President Trump has officially withdrawn from the Paris Accord.
Science magazine had “egg on its face.” Its editor went on to another prestigious position, as president of the National Academy of Sciences. While the NCDC paper could be considered “a tempest in the teapot,” it had no lasting effect. Any criticism of NOAA was automatically transferred to criticism of President Trump."