"Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to interpret large datasets with numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and other so-called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years [by introducing scientifically essential adjustments or 'corrections' to the data to be analyzed].
Their methods may not be perfect, and are certainly not immune from critical analysis, but that critical analysis should start out from a position of assuming good faith [as opposed to crackpot Tony Heller's tendency to choose a "conspiracy theory" starting point] and with an understanding of what exactly is being done."
-- Zeke Hausfather
"For me, all the evidence I saw backs up [Hausfather's] conclusion. I think there are plenty of lines of inquiry where the skeptical mindset might have some illuminating discussions on what is or is not going on with climate change. How accurate the forecasts are and what will happen in the future is one. How reliable are accounts of similar changes that may have happened in the distant past is another. And particularly what policy choices make sense given the range of possibilities. But the suggestion that routine and documented adjustments made in the climate data somehow constitutes fraud, everything I've seen suggests that that is nonsense.
The smart critics I've seen with the most impressive arguments, none of them dispute that the data is correct that the planet is warming. If the basis of your skepticism falls in the face of that reality you really need to question where that leaves you and how it changes your relationship with the people who put up the charts and the graphs that appear to suggest otherwise."
-- Mallen Baker