Historians and scientists will look back at the data and find the real unaltered data and correct everything back. You can’t do good future science with bad past data.

After that the rest of our history will look stupid. People will be asking “why in the world were they so worried about global warming?” The data just does not hold it up.

My great great great grand children will ask,
“Dad did we leave Earth because of global warming or because everyone was stupid?”
“Well son, grandpa put the family on this space ship because stupid was getting contagious and he didn’t want us catching it.”

First, the scientific method has not been updated to apply to data mining and simulations. Such things are useful, but are subject to both conscious and unconscious manipulation from the experimenter. Google “p-hacking” for examples. Each field needs to establish rigorous rules. Perhaps each data mining query or simulation run should be treated as an experiment, with a predetermined question, hypothesis, etc.. No fair looking at the data before the experiment runs or changing it in the middle of a run. My guess is that this is done in some fields but not others.

Second, it is the lack of knowledge of statistics. Most of my classmates in college took calculus. I took statistics because it is useful nearly everywhere, while calculus is used in far fewer fields of study. Statistics are the mathematical heart of science. It is a very interesting field of study when presented well Just try to find out how likely it is that two members of a class of 30 will share the same birthday…the answer may surprise you. Fortunately, this is starting to change…I hear the new ACT & SAT will have more questions on data interpretation.

We need to increase Federal spending on R&D.
(Render & Disappear, that is….)
((so to speak))

Diesel Punk
(because steam wasn’t dirty enough)
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/75/26/cd/7526cde79bb3767bd5bd20c16ca0eebf.jpg

There is something terribly wrong when scientists allow blatantly fudged data to stand as reality. We are hearing stories of people submitting bogus papers to journals for publication, and those bogus papers being accepted and published, showing that our science journals are not doing their job of vetting good research from bad. So it is not surprising that we keep hearing of papers that are retracted due to sloppy workmanship or bad scientific methodology.

It is a terrible thing that all this bad science is being accepted by our researchers and by those who fund and employ them.
https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/the-moral-and-intellectual-decline-of-american-academic-research/

Cassandra,
The fifth graph in the following link is the chart you mentioned:
https://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/
The adjustments correlate almost perfectly with atmospheric CO2. NOAA is adjusting the data to match global warming theory. This is known as PBEM (Policy Based Evidence Making.)

This shows that the data has been fudged in order to correspond with political agendas of those who provide the funding for scientific research into what is described as an “existential” problem. By their own description of the problem, our very existence depends upon the decisions that are based upon bogus conclusions from fudged data.

As they said in the 1986 version of the movie The Fly sometime after the experiment was done sloppily:
Tawny (or is she Greta Thunberg?): I’m afraid.

Seth Brundle (or is he a politician telling Greta that all will be OK, but only if everyone obeys government’s orders?): Don’t be afraid.

Ronnie (or is she the scientist who realizes that the government’s orders are based upon fudged science?): No. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=–hMJPUBwMc (6 seconds)

Star Bird,
No wonder they want all skeptics silenced. No one will be afraid of the bad decisions made by politicians, once the skeptics are silenced, because no one will realize that they are bad decisions.

Art is a hard science equal to engineering and math. (/sarcasm)

I’d never seen that date before as the record hot year – but 1934 screamed “Dust Bowl” in my head.
I’m not surprised that the two are coincident.

When us oldsters croak they can confidently make up even more ‘facts’ since none of us will be around to refute them.

“I can’t speak on behalf of everyone…”

Our children will save us! Yeah!!!

Greta will lead us into the new future.