Of course, the corrupt news media sees no problem with this. As ABC helpfully points out, NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information “adjusts weather data to account for factors like instrument changes, station relocation and urbanization, and it does so through peer-reviewed studies that are published publicly through its federal website.”

And factors like the need for climate scientists to show that the climate change apocalypse that they constantly predict for us is based on convincing data, when in fact it is based on flawed data, as the scientists admit once you cut through the jargon. For example, traditional glass thermometers have been replaced with more precise digital sensors warranting “adjustments” to accurately compare readings between the two instruments. Sea surface temperatures used to be taken manually from a bucket off of a boat, unlike the network of buoys and satellites that are used to gauge water temperatures today. Then there is the “urban heat island effect”: Cities heat up more than rural areas due to human activity, infrastructure and the concentration of buildings, roads and other heat-absorbing materials, causing higher temperatures in cities compared to surrounding areas. This can distort temperature data, making an area appear hotter than it is. So the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration makes adjustments to account for that too.

But when scientists “adjust data” recorded long ago using methods designed to make them compatible with contemporary measurements using different instruments and methods, the potential for confirmation bias and hypothesis pollution is huge and, ironically, unmeasurable. How does the pubic know that these “adjustments” don’t deliberately conform to what the researchers want them to confirm? It doesn’t. How do we know that when historic data seems to undermine the scientific “consensus” regarding climate change, the climate science community’s reaction isn’t “Well, that can’t be right! Better make an “adjustment!”? We don’t.

The whole historical cliamte change game is built on comparing apples to oranges, and then figuring out a way to make an orange seem more like an apple so as sufficiently to convince—or mislead—those who are not familiar with the process to accept the results as “science.”

Then our government and its agencies dutifully restrict industry, manufacturing, energy production and transportation based on these supposedly reliable conclusions.

The climate change “adjustments” may be correct or they may not be, but allowing the adjustments to made by individuals with a professional stake in what the data ultimately shows is irresponsible on the part of NOAA, and incompetent of the part of our government.