It depends entirely on which data you're talking about. There was data that was included and probably should not have been, and data that was excluded and probably should not have been.

But the "raw vs adjusted" argument has no bearing on the fact that the Karl paper reaches different conclusions, based on the available data, than just about everyone else, AND used highly questionable methods to reach those conclusions. The fact that it was THEN adopted as the "official" record, when it is actually an outlier, reinforces the notion that NOAA just wanted to support their foregone conclusion.

A mathematician or statistician can spot improper use of statistics no matter what the field. Climate science -- and every other field of science -- uses (or is supposed to use) standard scientific and mathematical methods to prove their point.

No, you do NOT have to be a climate scientist to spot bad methodology. You only have to know a couple of things to call out a good number of climate scientists. (1) What is proper, standard scientific methodology? (2) What is proper, standard use of statistical methods on datasets?

If YOU don't understand that, then the Dunning-Kruger table has been rather turned. Have fun.

As for reconstructive surgery: I can GUESS whatever the hell I like, if I label it as such (as I did). If you don't like that, too bad. If you have contrary evidence, present it and show my guess to be wrong. Otherwise your own point works against you.

Hilarious.

Math is math. Methodology is methodology. No matter what field you are in. If you don't understand that... well, you must not be a scientist.

1) If you don't identify yourself don't be surprised when you get confused with someone else.

2) You can imagine whatever meaning I intended that you want. Your imagination does not make it so.

3) I owe you nothing. I am "going to have to" do nothing.

Yes, they really did adjust data as I described.

Yes, they really did leave out more accurate data with wider coverage.

BUT, they were sure to INCLUDE data that was guaranteed to put a warming trend in their dataset.

Coincidence? I think not.

"Complaining"? No.

There were zero "complaints" in my comment. Do you even know what the word means?

Oh? Just what do you know about me, mr. "Anonymous Coward"? Oh, right... we really know who you are, don't we? That's how you can claim to know about me.

I don't have to be a climate scientist to spot data manipulation. I don't have to be a surgeon to see something that deviates widely from other work in the field. No, I am not a surgeon. But I follow the publicly-published work in reconstructive surgery when I get a reasonable chance.

Do you?

"They" is implicit from the CONTEXT... which I know you just don't seem to understand.

Further, "get stuffed" is NOT an insult, it's a phrase which means "go away".

Really, guy, this was lame. Really, really lame. I can hardly wait to see those others you left.

You have completely missed the point I was making, and your vehemence and vitriol say the rest. Try actually thinking about what I actually wrote, rather than running off on tangents.

Yes, portions of child skulls HAVE been done in Europe and U.S. Not quit such a large portion, but still. Their "advance" is only incremental, and they did it differently than Western doctors would have.

Do I think their method has inherent flaws? Yes, as I actually pointed out. Which had NOTHING to do with allowance for growth.

I agree with what you say, but that wasn't the point.

The seams mimicking cranial sutures are one thing. I have no problem with that. But there is no way that uni-brow has anything to do with normal brain size or shape, or integrating with normal facial features. They did that for reasons of their own.

There have been near-complete upper skull replacements in the U.S. already (rendering this not so much of an accomplishment, merely incremental), but they were generated using PET scans and 3D-printing techniques to mold something a bit more natural-skull-like.

I have no problem with the fact that room must be made to grow. But where did that straight uni-brow come from? I have never read anything in the field that would justify it.

It wasn't "anti-chinese bias" you anti-Jane-biased person!

I happen to know a little about how they operate. Too bad if that doesn't fit your perception, but that doesn't justify willy-nilly insulting people. Get stuffed.

The fact that it was explained is not evidence that the reasons were valid or sufficient.

They did some very unconventional things in Karl et al., and haven't rationally justified them.

For example: when you homogenize data, you don't normally take data with known small bias and uncertainty, and make adjustments to that in order to match another set of data with known greater uncertainty and known bias problems.

Further, you don't leave out data that is known to be more accurate and cover a greater area, just because it doesn't agree with what you want to show.

In science, nobody does those things. Unless, of course, you are NOAA, and have an axe to grind.

That's a ridiculous assertion. The board members of those companies do not have to eat what "everybody else" eats. It's probably not out of line to guess they eat "organic" and "heirloom" pretty much all the time.

But if you look close, its shape is nothing like a normal cranium.

My guess is that they did it as a last resort + PR move, without really doing the engineering "custom design" work that would have been done in places like, say, the U.S.

You have to admit it's a pretty bizarre-looking skull. Huge monobrow, for example.

By the way, I also wanted to point out that OP's hyphenation is wrong. It wasn't an anti-GMO labeling law. (That would be a labeling law that is anti-GMO.) It was an anti-GMO-labeling law.