OK. Why is this guy going after NOAA?
Folks within a program (my experience is within anti-aircraft radar systems as a speciality) may feel fee to criticise the data processing in a testing regime to make it more representative, we did so to challenge the alarm ratio against natural wildlife. But to stretch that to say that the data is inaccurate would be grossly mis-representative.
From what I understand to the Karl 2015 paper. The changes were to he anomaly data, not the raw data. This was done because the ship water intake data has a significantly longer data record.
It's like knowing your tank temperature data sensor has a 0.5 deg offset. You know that the measurements from 10 years ago are (0.5, 0.6. 0.7), nowadays the new measurements are (0.6, 0.8, and 1.0). Even if the instrument baseline is off the anomaly is still (0.1, 0.2, 0.3) and there is huge effort ifrom the folks running all of the the datasets to trace down and account for errors in these anomalies due to changes in location, time-of-observation, instrumentation, shielding, etc.
The article is a piss-poor attempt to denigrate working scientists who have, in cases, committed a lifetime of observational studies to the body of work relating to this subject. Venal politicians are totally did-respectful of the effort required to gain some of the data, that they misconstrue s falsified. I'd love to see their fat-arses out on the ice releasing and tracking met balloons at stupid o'clock in the morning, or boring ice holes for ice thickness measurements to calibrate and back-up the satellite measurements. No doubt they will be too busy wining and dining lobbyists!