It's almost as if these guys are running temp agencies -- they're lying

Unfortunately, I'm talking about the guys who are responsible for keeping surface temperature data -- folks like Gavin Schmidt at GISS in the U.S., and Phil Jones at Hadley CRU in the U.K. Even though the surface temperature data is not actually the critical component of the man-made global warming theory -- tropospheric temperatures are -- surface temperatures are the most compellingly convincing to a public that doesn't understand the theory. So, naturally, since the surface temperature data contradicts their theory, they lie. They simply change the data:

Suppose say, that for the last 100 years my family have been maintaining a weather station at the bottom of our garden, diligently recording the temperatures day by day, and that what these records show is this: that in the 1930s it was jolly hot – even hotter than in the 1980s; that since the 1940s it has been cooling.
What conclusions would you draw from this hard evidence?
Well the obvious one, I imagine, is that the dramatic Twentieth Century warming that people like Al Gore have been banging on about is a crock. At least according to this particular weather station it is.
Now how would you feel if you went and took these temperature records along to one of the world’s leading global warming experts – say Gavin Schmidt at NASA or Phil Jones at CRU or Michael Mann at Penn State – and they studied your records for a moment and said: “This isn’t right.” What if they then crossed out all your temperature measurements, did a few calculations on the back of an envelope, and scribbled in their amendments? And you studied those adjustments and you realised, to your astonishment, that the new, pretend temperature measurements told an entirely different story from the original, real temperature measurements: that where before your records showed a cooling since the 1940s they now showed a warming trend.
You’d be gobsmacked, would you not?
Yet, incredible though it may seem, the scenario I’ve just described is more or less exactly analogous to what has happened to the raw data from weather stations all over the world.

Temperature adjustments are routine at the world bodies, including NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the U.K.'s Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University. They don't ever explain how, or even really why, they do them, but they make "corrections" to temperature data all the time. Oddly enough, they always adjust temperatures in the past down, and more recent temperatures up, to make a more convincing upward temperature trend. Unfiortunately, they've been busted:

If it wasn’t for the diligence of amateur investigators like retired accountant Paul Homewood, probably no one would care, not even Paraguayans, what has been going on with the Paraguayan temperature records. But Homewood has done his homework and here, revealed at his site Notalotofpeopleknowthat, is what he found.
He began by examining Paraguay’s only three genuinely rural weather stations. (ie the ones least likely to have had their readings affected over the years by urban development.)
All three – at least in the versions used by NASA GISS for their “hottest year on record” claim – show a “clear and steady” upward (warming) trend since the 1950s, with 2014 shown as the hottest year at one of the sites, Puerto Casado.
Judging by this chart all is clear: it’s getting hotter in Paraguay, just like it is everywhere else in the world.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=308860860000&dt=1&ds=14
But wait. How did the Puerto Casado chart look before the temperature data was adjusted? Rather different as you see here:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=308860860004&dt=1&ds=1
Perhaps, though, Puerto Casada was an anomaly?
Nope. Similar adjustments, in the same direction, appear to have been made to the two other rural sites.





Ah. But there was surely some innocent explanation for this, Homewood surmised. Perhaps the rural stations were wildly out of kilter with the urban stations and had been ‘homogenised’ accordingly.
Except, guess what?

OK. So why am I making you look at all these charts? Because seeing is believing.
Without those charts, it would be all too easy for you to go: “Yeah well he’s not a scientist so he probably doesn’t know what he’s talking about” or “he’s exaggerating” or “he has got the wrong end of the stick.”
So, judge for yourself. These are the actual before and after charts, reproduced from NASA’s own website.

So weird how the actual temperatures could be so wrong.