Yes, normally in a case where data were later shown to have been taken incorrectly, you would remove just the incorrect data but leave an unmodified copy of the old data available somewhere. Or, just leave a very prominent note about the change with a detailed explanation somewhere else. You would not take down everything because 1. That would deprive taxpayers of the correct data they had already paid for, and 2. That would mess up the data ingestion pipelines of the researchers who depended on the data.

And even in that article it states:

"If you use only the sites that currently have good siting versus those that have not-so-good siting, when you look at the adjusted data basically you get the same trend," said Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch at NCDC.

Lawrimore admitted that Watts' volunteers had discovered real problems with sensor siting, but he said that even when those sites' heat readings were adjusted down, they still showed a steady overall rise in temperatures.

"The ultimate conclusion, the bottom line is that there really isn't evidence that the trends have a bias based on the current siting," he said.

And surface station data is only a small subset of information confirming the warming of the climate, Lawrimore said.

Here’s something from 2024. It’s not heat sources, but tampering with rain gauges in this case.

https://coloradosun.com/2024/09/08/patrich-esch-ed-dean-jage... ( https://archive.is/jBh8H )

> Wrecked rain gauges. Whistleblowers. Million-dollar payouts and manhunts. Then a Colorado crop fraud got really crazy.

> The sordid story of two ranchers who conspired to falsify drought numbers by tampering with rain gauges on the plains of Colorado and Kansas, resulting in millions in false insurance claims

They never do. I always look up users like this after the fact and it’s always clear to me they got lost in sauce online, ended up on HN, and think they can just get away being edgy in a room full of professional nerd snipers.