This appears to be what you're talking about:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/jun/25/steve-dooc... https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/global-warming-data-faked/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/jun/25/steve-dooc... https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/global-warming-data-faked/
Here is proof from of altered NASA data. https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=willmadden&next=2730...
In the original, the high change in the 1930's looks like slightly under 1.5 degrees, and in the "altered" the change looks like slightly under 1.5 degrees. At most they altered it from 1.4 to 1.3, but that seems more likely to be an error than a grand conspiracy.
Apparently there was indeed a shift from sundown measurements to morning, which, if not accounted for, would show a false "cooling" after that measurement procedure change.
I am not a climate scientist, but I'd love to know if and why these corrections are invalid, or if, as claimed [1] multiple independent groups confirmed the corrections are consistent.
[1] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/jun/25/steve-dooc... cribbed from another comment, which cites sources, but I haven't looked at them (and I am not very qualified to make a judgement on the reliability in this field).
Also, "politifact" is not a reputable source. They are funded by facebook, microsoft and other multinational corporations that are owned by Blackrock and Vanguard as well as various "foundations" that receive tax free donations from old money's corporate investments. https://www.politifact.com/who-pays-for-politifact/ Politifact is a multinational corporate propaganda outlet masquerading as a public service. Their track record on COVID and the mRNA vaccines is also an abomination.
Correct, the 30's/40's data was changed and in only one direction (colder) as the NASA sourced articles I linked from different time periods proves.
The original, unaltered data was always taken at sunset. They came up with other excuses to decrease the temperature of the original data readings from the 30's and 40's.
I can't prove intent, but I can point to the hundreds of millions in grant money that the NSF only gives to scientists willing to produce results supporting its hypothesis of anthropogenic warming.
I've been proven correct anyway about the bogus climate models. It's time to admit it is possible you have been snookered. https://www.cato.org/commentary/are-climate-models-overpredi...
Right, and modern measurements are not, they're more often taken in the morning, when it's colder, because the air and ground has been cooling all night[1]. That's the point. The original data is not directly comparable to modern data.
And the Cato Institute is probably the worst possible way to position yourself as unbiased.
A simple search for the articles that 404 will find them: [2]. You can't use your own inability to look things up as evidence of malfeasance.
[1] https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/papers/menne-etal20...
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20160121023820/https://www.ncdc....
Since you're apparently not interested in the politifact or snopes links someone else provided, here's a "primary source".
In your comment you're making a stink about, you have one proper link to data from 1999, and one direct link to a later graph without context.
The NASA page with the current graph, and explanations addressing the discrepancy directly below it, is here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
But I suspect you already well knew that.