The above graph is the source data for the famous "Hockey Stick" graph. The one below it is similar data taken from another location (IIRC one was taken in Arizona, the other California). Why they chose to use one and not both is beyond me. So, there are some types of science that are more based on perception. (Note, I'm not saying that this instance invalidates anthropogenic global warming, just that sometimes people present the data that favors their hypothesis).
The distribution of primes, on the other hand, relies on one set of data. We don't know everything about primes, and have some theories that may be invalid, but the data is isolated and irrefutable. This is how math is different IMO - it has a tendency to revolve around the nature of numbers rather than ever-changing real world measurements.
There is a lot of money in climate science and green tech. A friend of my parents got a multibillion dollar grant from the government to develop a clean energy solution, for example.
My usual disclaimer - I dont care one way or the other to what degree humans are warming the earth - I say act environmentally friendly either way.
The hockey stick graph is based on a aggregation of global or hemispherical temperature records. It is most certainly not based on a single temperature record from Arizona.
It turns out the data was blended, but it was weighted in an odd way to favor the spikey outcome at the end. This is just one source, so take it with a grain of salt.
The (in)famous hockey stick graph was not of temperature at one location, it's of global mean temperature.