It appears that Berkeley didn't actually do what they claimed to do, though, if you go back and review what they did. In fact, at this point in time I'm pretty much convinced that they were just providing a "false front" - pretending to be skeptical about the situation when they actually weren't so from the beginning. At the very least they used the same questionable data and the same (or similar) algorithms that the other groups were using.

As I believe I've already commented about in this thread, a few years back I did something of a "deep dive" on temperature data, paying particular attention to the temperature records in my own area. What I found there at the time was appalling, and even if I go check Berkeley right now what they show there appears to have little or no basis in reality.

Search my comment history for where I go on at some length about Berkeley (BEST) and the problems I see there. I suggest that you follow the links and go check out some things for yourself.

(Forgot to add) When I reviewed local temperature records myself, dating back to 1870 or so, I did indeed see a real but modest warming trend. But it was nothing like the warming which showed up after you got finished "adjusting" the data, which the climate folks routinely do.

As to deep ocean temps and such, lately those folks have been claiming to measure temperature changes on the order of 1/1000th of a degree per year, if not less. Now I don't know about you, but that just strikes me as BS on the face of it - more "statistical noise" than anything else. There are also claims made about ice melt and such, but if you do the math (the amount of ice claimed to have melted vs. the amount of ice still sitting there), you see that it falls within the same type of range - not even rounding error, just "noise".