It's rather amusing the depths some have to go to and still don't even touch on the subject. For those that came in late and don't (or don't want to) understand the actual question re data contamination and this clearly is referring to the following 2 (yes just 2 simple) questions
1) Why would anybody want to cap the minimum temperature, where any temperature below a certain value is automatically assigned a pre-conceived (warmer) set value by default?
2) Why would anybody use (as official records) the instantaneous maximum temperate values contradictory to the WMO standards.
For those hiding behind credibility claims then here's your chance to provide valid, creditable and factual reasons for these 2 very simple questions and no doubt one wouldn't even have to be an accredited scientist to explain why this exaggeration to dupe the public has occurred
OK,Mattk, it's hard to ferret out what you're actually yammering about because you have steadfastly refused to provide any corroborating source evidence or links of your allegations; contrary to all norms of factual, reality-based argument and scientific inquiry.
So I dug around for something that best-fits your inane hypothesis. I found a refutation of what sounds like your argument at Climate Denier Myth #135, from the middle
link I provided in my previous post.
It appears that you are simply dredging up a long-refuted allegation regarding the CRU brouhaha.
I'll link and provide a partial quote below (now if you would only provide a shred of your own info for validation).
The actual text of this link is somewhat longer than I quote, read it. (BTW, most material on this link is written by credentialed PhD climate scientists, not tv&radio bloviator scripters)
https://skepticalscience.com/CRU-tampered-temperature-data.htm"
Did CRU tamper with temperature data?
Link to this page
What the science says...
The Independent Climate Change Email Review went back to primary data sources and were able to replicate CRU's results. This means not only was CRU not hiding anything, but it had nothing to hide. Though CRU neglected to provide an exact list of temperature stations, it could not have hid or tampered with data.
Climate Myth...
CRU tampered with temperature data
"So recently the media picked up on the fact that CRU deleted the raw data for this important global temperature set long ago. We have known this for some time now. The interesting point is that it also seems each time they come across a new dataset it is simply replaced. So what we have is a process which allows the systematic choosing of ever warmer records over time which is so convoluted nobody can figure out what really happened." (The Air Vent)
Exhibit No. 1 of the climate conspiracy theory is a collection of emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA), which appeared on the internet in November 2009. Though some of these "Climategate" emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The most comprehensive inquiry, the Independent Climate Change Email Review, did something the media completely failed to do: it put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. Its general findings (summarised here) were that the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the advice given to policymakers, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness.
One set of allegations against CRU concern its main area of research, the instrumental temperature record CRUTEM. The CRUTEM analysis is very similar to those produced by independent groups such as NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Nevertheless, the contrarians allege that CRU manipulated data to fabricate a global warming trend; that CRU prevented critics from accessing the raw data and other information required to check its conclusions; and that CRU director Phil Jones failed to admit having cited fraudulent data twenty years ago. Thus they claim CRUTEM cannot be trusted.
To create the CRUTEM surface temperature analysis, CRU scientists take temperature data from 4,138 stations, and for each station they calculate the mean temperature for 1961-1990 and temperature anomalies relative to that period. They then arrange all this data into a 5x5 degree grid. This process requires that adjustments be made to account for sources of error such as changing station locations or urban heat island effect."
"Thus the Review demonstrated that CRU was not hiding anything: sufficient data was available to replicate CRU’s results, and any competent researcher would be able to analyse it. Furthermore, they had nothing to hide: both adjusted and unadjusted data yielded very similar results to CRUTEM, and CRU’s homogenisation adjustments make no significant difference to the global average. Although the Review stopped short of drawing scientific conclusions, it appears that CRU’s conclusions are robust.
Based on this, the Review concluded (its emphasis):
CRU was not in a position to withhold access to [temperature] data or tamper with it. We demonstrated that any independent researcher can download station data directly from primary sources and undertake their own temperature trend analysis.
On the allegation of biased station selection and analysis, we find no evidence of bias. Our work indicates that analysis of global land temperature trends is robust to a range of station selections and to the use of adjusted or unadjusted data. The level of agreement between independent analyses is such that it is highly unlikely that CRU could have acted improperly to reach a predetermined outcome. [1.3.1]
This is stated more explicitly in Chapter 6:
It is impossible for a third party to tamper improperly with the data unless they have also been able to corrupt the GHCN and NCAR sources. We do not consider this to be a credible possibility, and in any case this would be easily detectable by comparison to the original NMO records [6.4]"
https://skepticalscience.com/CRU-tampered-temperature-data.htm