We've seen this before with climategate - people seem to be endlessly editing the historical records.
What is the basis of these revisions?
Ideology
https://www.science.org/content/article/world-1-3%C2%B0c-or-...
Apparently the Japanese continued using wooden buckets longer than other navies, resulting in Pacific data being skewed.
What is discussed there is part of all data interpretation, the transfer functions between raw measures of <something> and the inferred values of <interest>.
eg: https://www.ga.gov.au/bigobj/GA13928.pdf as an example of stitching 40 years of survey data collected with a range of different instruments and procedures.
In the climate domain the same care is taken to preserve raw data from historic methods, the challenge is syncing data streams that have covariant features (such as matching years against tree patterns from differing logs from a variety of species), in this case logs from a variety of ways of sampling sea water temperature.
Glad you took my comment well, no offense was intended :)
They can be reinterpreted, but we must never edit or delete the original records.
> Historical records, especially pre-record keeping are revised
Here "historical records" means "the best-known interpretation of historical evidence": it's not talking about modifying records made pre-record keeping. Of course we still have access to previous interpretations: people have gone to pains to ensure they're preserved (despite certain former stewards trying to erase them), and those people are building more resilient systems to avoid this happening again.