Remember. The scientists manipulate all the data, but somehow actively post the raw data (which they obviously don't use/manipulate) for public use, which amazingly shows that thru are making up the conclusions for data that they strangely post in raw form.
Feel free to don a tinfoil hat at any time.
This is silly... If you are getting a world wide audience to buy into your scam, you are also going to have to sell fellow scientists. Meaning, that with the global scale of the problem, the raw temperature data is going to need to be public.
It's not like we're talking about specific gene sequences in some hybrid plant type of science.
So, the absolute values of temperatures get reported, co2 concentrations are usually baseline from Hawaii. We have a theory; that human produced co2 is the driving force for climate change (though originally it's global warming).
Are you with me still?
OK, so now the ipcc, being paid by the UN is tasked to analyze that data, they are trying to show their best guesses as to how much co2 impacts climate.
The models they create always wind up falling flat... but as long as they keep writing these reports, keep pushing the fear, then they keep getting paid, because by the time the data comes out to prove them wrong, they have a new report ready.
Like that, it's not conspiracy, it's business.
Others cash in on the band Wagon, because selling studies concerning agw is an easy sell, and it doesn't even matter if the study is in any way true to life because people buy into it.
Now, if you want to have a debate on the validity of the data, that's another conversation, but I'm willing to accept the raw data since it doesn't even really sustain the argument any longer, but you can't seem to see it because the ipcc and friends won't ever tell you.