I think the article's correct but it's mistake is in ascribing motive to the lost dataset. The bottom line is that Global Warming traces its origins back to a study done on a dataset that is now incomplete. But the fact that there's only one dataset isn't exactly a conspiracy.
When talking about Global Warming we're talking about measuring a really small number over a really, really big surface area. That's a far bigger job than most people think. All the equipment has to be calibrated exactly, in sync, and distributed across the globe.
And as I said the numbers are relatively small. Global Warming asserts a 1.33 degree increase in temperature over the last Century. To put that in perspective the difference between standing on asphalt during a sunny day or standing on concrete during a sunny day is about 3 degrees (because the concrete reflects where as the asphalt absorbs)
So it's not some big conspiracy. There's probably only one set of equipment in the world capable of measuring what needs to be measured which is why there's only one dataset available. How parts of it got lost is anyone's guess but I can't imagine in was done with malicious intent or that the study based on that dataset was purposely inaccurate (or at least I don't want to imagine that)
mistake is in ascribing motive to the lost dataset
Indeed. When you get down to it, the core of many political skeptics' arguments is: evil liberal scientists can't get real jobs so they cooked up 'climate change' to get endless government funding from honest taxpayers like you and me.
Those political organs arguing most vociferously against action on climate change oppose any kind of public funding for science that isn't obviously defense-related.
There's plenty of evidence, other than temperature measurements: permafrost, glaciers, and polar ice melting; extended growing seasons; changes in bird migration.
Not really true. That indicates weather changes in certain areas but doesn't measure global weather changes which is what's called for when trying to assess the validity of man-made Global Warming.
Isolated weather changes like the ones you cite happen all the time on our planet.
When talking about Global Warming we're talking about measuring a really small number over a really, really big surface area. That's a far bigger job than most people think. All the equipment has to be calibrated exactly, in sync, and distributed across the globe.
And as I said the numbers are relatively small. Global Warming asserts a 1.33 degree increase in temperature over the last Century. To put that in perspective the difference between standing on asphalt during a sunny day or standing on concrete during a sunny day is about 3 degrees (because the concrete reflects where as the asphalt absorbs)
So it's not some big conspiracy. There's probably only one set of equipment in the world capable of measuring what needs to be measured which is why there's only one dataset available. How parts of it got lost is anyone's guess but I can't imagine in was done with malicious intent or that the study based on that dataset was purposely inaccurate (or at least I don't want to imagine that)