What do you say JD, about the claim re editing of data - see this article.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/

There must be many thousands of data sets, and certain formulas probably needed to arrive at "AVERAGE", so I cannot help but wonder how many 'climate scientists' actually use RAW data to peer review 'official' results. You accept, but have you reviewed what IPCC claims?

As for me, I just have to sit on the fence (whilst putting panels om my roof - etc).

Addendum Edit. 

From your link "“The difference between 1.5C and 2C is a death sentence for the Maldives,” said Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, president of the country......"!  Would he have reviewed the raw data and results? Obviously not, bur he makes a solid 'statement'. Ditto for 99.999% of populations, but .....   You get the message.

Hi Bob. Significant adjustment shows before circa 1945. Next to nothing post 1945, so I presume recording became better then. BTW, where did the graph come from?

What sparks my interest more is where and how many recording points are used, how gaps between points are treated etc. Then the spread of industrial and urban areas has to be factored in somehow. (That could account for adjustment prior to 1945.)

I think I read sometime back that several methods of measurement are used - are there anomalies between methods - if so how is that dealt with? Last of all, to be a true global average temp, all readings should be at the same time - everywhere. How is that accomplished? A tall order when we are talking fractions of a degree.

Summing up, 10, 20 or more guys working independently could be expected to have different methods of arriving at an av temp, with 10, 20 or more different answers, all from the same data points. Who has final say? 

I am not JD so I assume you meant me when you posted to me.

The argumentative article is free from evidence. One can see that they would have partisan interests in there not being global warming.

The science of anything goes like this: scientists = 100% of what makes the leading verified opinion, based on their peer reviewed research. All else = 0%, including paid cronies = 0%.

Source given in previous post to OldAl88

Now that we are in the point of no return era of climate change there is still little to know recognition among mere politicians.

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/fossil-fuels-ipcc-report-b2050522.html

"Warning "it’s now or never", the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said in its latest assessment of human progress on mitigating the threat posed by the worsening climate crisis.

How can this be done? At the moment, emissions are still increasing "across all sectors globally", the report warned. While some economies have made considerable strides in cutting emissions from fossil fuel and industrial processes, these cuts have been less than rising global levels of emissions from industry, energy supply, transport, agricultural activity and buildings."

Why are we walking such a risky tight robe? Well, the implications for our wealth are significant. The chances to be elected are slim, the chances to be reelected are basically zero if one would run such a program.