"The claims of the IPCC etc are shown to be false without manipulation .. historical in situ evidence shows this ... the future of the sites can be shown without manipulation through historical in situ evidence . No need for Homeganisation and Frankengraphs to demonstrate this opposing theory."
Maybe you missed my earlier comment. The raw, unadjusted, unhomogenised data shows MORE warming than the scientists' adjusted records taking account of site and instrument changes etc.
But it's silly to suggest we should ignore changes made to the locations of stations, time of observation bias etc, that affect temperature records, when constructing a long term valid record.
If you want to go with the raw data, fine. But that shows it is warming faster than the scientists are claiming.
