Are you saying the raw data collected by NOAA and others has not been changed ..for whatever reason, for use in various reporting? That is pretty common knowledge. Of course NOAA has reasons they consider the changes appropriate while I simply note that changes often can detract from the integrity of data in general. If unchanged raw data showed significant warming I think there would be no question about the warming trend we are seeing. There was a large cooling period in the data set for YEARS that contradicted the industrial age steady warming claim. It was adjusted out before the Paris accords by NOAA. The adjustments made older data colder than measured and newer data warmer than measured producing a more “desirable” graph showing steady warming during the industrial age. That is just fact. Now whether the changes were part of some conspiracy or were inappropriate is not fact. They were certainly unfortunate. I doubt you are interested but Dr Don Easterbrook does a good job of showing graphs and changes using UNADJUSTED DATA during a presentation to a congressional panel on YouTube. It displays the confusion by several Senators who are reading adjusted Data and highlights why there would be confusion. Its a simple search. I do not propose it to be “final proof” of anything but the data seems to be solid and without bias. This does not mean it is applied appropriately to make a final determination on the matter or that the changes the Senators are using are not ultimately appropriate.
Some glaciers are very much melting …or gone. Others are growing. What I do know is that it certainly seems warmer than it was 20 years ago in general. Also there appears to be some evidence that CO2 historically follows warming as opposed to small amounts of CO2 producing the warming. So if not CO2, what is causing the warming? I have no idea. Some speculate the Sun is the cause, heating the ocean which releases additional CO2 as it warms perhaps causing the CO2 increases we observe. CO2 is certainly a greenhouse gas but at .04% or 400 parts per million, it seems like a lot of work for such a small amount of gas when CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today at various times in history.
Irony? Someone stating that someone asking questions and making observations about inconsistency and changes to data….. “… know{s} everything you’re capable of knowing.” I admit, I am not always correct but i am always a terrible Sheep.