No one has done that and even if you took the raw unadjusted data and used that the results wouldn't be much different than using adjusted data.

If you think they're trying to take your money now just wait til you have to pay the cost of adapting to global warming.

Actually the next ice age is indefinitely postponed until CO2 levels drop below about 250 ppm again.

Because news organizations think the error bars are too confusing for regular people. They're probably right. But the probabilities of 2014 being the hottest year were mentioned prominently in the joint NOAA/NASA press conference on the subject. Here are the graphics from that press conference. See page 5.

What does that have to do with anything I wrote.

Maybe there is a correlation with temperature and lightening but where is the causation and what way does it flow? My guess would be since warming causes more atmospheric water vapor that could lead to more lightening.

There is far more "fiddling" done just to produce the satellite temperature data than there is to produce the surface temperature data. In the first place satellites don't measure temperature directly. Instead they measure the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules which serve as a proxy for temperatures in blobs of the atmosphere above the surface. They have to be adjusted for things like orbital decay, estimated sensor drift, changes in the time of observation and to account for things like clouds and high elevations (the Himalayas). Only then can they derive a temperature from the satellites.

That may be true in the sense that you can't instantaneously measure the temperature of every square Planck length of area on the surface of the Earth. But by choosing a representative sample of stations around the world and consistently deriving an average temperature you can get an idea of how temperature is changing over time which is what we really care about.

Maybe so but that reboot process is going to take a while and be unpleasant for everybody (except maybe masochists). It might also mean a significant drop in world population.

Well, there have been science fiction stories about intelligent beings existing in/as plasma. Maybe we can figure that out.

Well, first of all "climate change" is a far older term than "global warming". Gilbert Plass published a paper titled "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change" in 1958. The terms are used interchangeably.

The rest of your post is just hyperbolic.

I imagine you're giggling a lot more about the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels are a major factor in Earth's climate than I am about penicillin.

Mann did disclose the source of his funding. That's the issue here, Soon didn't. Anything you need to know about his research is in his published work and that's what he should be judged on. Anything else is irrelevant.

Capitalism's problem as it is currently practiced is it's too easy to externalize costs and foist them off on someone else or society in general. It's a distortion of capitalism when the full cost of something is not included in its price.

I have to wonder what Freeman Dyson would say if he sat down for a day with someone like James Hansen who could speak with him on his level about the issues. I suspect he might change his tune.

The whole issue with Soon was not that he was funded by a fossil fuel company but that he failed to disclose that he was funded by a fossil fuel company. In most cases a study funded by a government grant is required to disclose the source of the funding in published papers and it's good scientific ethics to disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

Studies funded by the National Science Foundation, a major source of the funding you're talking about, explicitly require that you note the grant number in your published papers. From that you should have no problem auditing where the money went.

More money may be spent in climate research but how much of that goes into designing, building, launching and downloading data from satellites? How much of it goes into supercomputers and other hardware? How much goes in to funding expeditions to remote sites? Very little gets spent on that sort of thing by the other side.