When does the recorded temperature not constitute the temperature record?

I'm a simple man  and I believe in simple things.  For instance, I believe that the way we keep temperature records is that some local chappie walks out to a post with a thermometer nailed to it and reads the temperature.  He then writes that on a piece of paper (or keys it into a website) and bungs it into the boffins at NOAA that keep our weather records.  They then tot up all of the temperature readings from all the chappies reading all the thermometers in the land and publishes them in a book (well, a web site).  Read thermometer, record reading, compile, publish and Bob's your uncle.

And I would be wrong.  NOAA 'adjusts' the temperature readings that are sent to it. It's not clear what the reason is, nor is it clear what the process is but one thing is becoming increasingly clear:  NOAA adjusts differently for today's temperature readings than it does for those hailing from, oh, let's say the 1930s which if you're old enough you'll recall was a very hot decade, indeed the hottest on record when measured by the actual temperatures recorded by the chappies.  But mysteriously it becomes quite a bit 'cooler' after the Boffins get through with it while today's temperatures tend to get adjusted 'hotter'.  Getting the picture?   Here's an example I got from Anthony Watt's great site for all things AGW:  wattsupwiththat.com.

Kansas temperature readings by station in July 1936. The black numbers are the actual readings, the red numbers are after NOAA gets done with them.


Kansas temperature readings by station in July 2012


 I totted up all of the 'downs' and 'ups' for Kansas sites in the two periods - a down would be where NOAA adjusted the temperature downward from actual and an up is the opposite.

July 1936:  30 downward revisions to 2 upward revisions
July 2012:  7 downward revisions, 17 upward revisions.  (There are fewer active recording stations than there were in 1936.)

They did not leave a single 'actual' reading alone.  Every single one was manipulated.

Fascinating.  And people who've looked at it find this all over the temperature record.  I call this downward adjustment of the past and upward adjustment of today upsloping, or increasing the slope of the temperature increase through dishonest, opaque data manipulation for 'statistical' purposes.  And if that wasn't bad enough, even after they've recorded their manipulated readings as 'actual' the numbers keep bouncing around.  The link above discusses how last year NOAA published one set of summary statistics claiming July 2012 was the warmest ever (obviously not true in a world that has been healthy at at least 8 C hotter in previous ages) and this year it made the same claim but cited different averages for the same geography and time period.  Apparently, the numbers get bunged into the NOAA Number Blender and they keep getting sliced and diced until the 'right' combination of truth, manipulations and global 'warming' evidence pops out..

So given that our Federal Stupor State is resolutely pro AGW and resolutely pro giving themselves much more power over the rest of us and is working for an administration that's jonesing for coercion even more than they are, what odds will you give me that the changes to the numbers are 'neutral'?  And even if they were, the very act of manipulating them causes anyone looking at it to question their integrity.  Why not just use the original data?  As an aside:  from a statistical standpoint any transformation of raw data to 'normalize', 'clean up' or other wise change it degrades the power of the findings derived from it.  So why hurt your science?  Unless the numbers were no longer telling the 'right' story.  Hmm.

It also turns out that in some cases NOAA has 'lost' the original chappie temperature record and has only retained their manipulated numbers.  How convenient.  LIke Henry Ford said of history, the temperature record is increasingly bunk.  And if the baseline record has no integrity then how can any projections off of it be credible?

It is astounding that otherwise 'reputable' scientists would behave in such a transparently shoddy or even unethical manner.  It boggles the mind.  So next time someone screams 'we're all gonna burn!" roll our eyes and remember the data is bunk.