That's not offensive in the business. Especially when the work is a survey of other work which is pretty much what the GAST measurement analysis is.
The only counterarguments I can think of about the GAST adjustment data would be: 1) to charge that the data was incomplete thus unreliable, or 2) that the conclusions (if any) are in error.
But to insist that there needed to be supporting works cited to, seems a bridge to far to me.
It's as if I did a paper on the number of times the word "Apostate" was used in this forum and then later revised by the original poster.
To what other research would I cite? I either counted correctly or I didn't.
It seems the more I read it, the less this report makes sense.
The only thing they point out, ultimately, is that the corrections made to the data over time may have made it seem like the temps went up without looking at cyclical data which could have impacted the data.
While this makes sense, it does not invalidate the data and does comparisons with disparate data to get to this conclusion, and most data is stopped at certain years in their comparisons, even though newer data is available, and used in other comparisons.
So the data models are not accurate and constantly being adjusted. Don't need a masters to see that.
That the data may make things look like they are warmer than they are, well who did they tell that to? Certainly if they are this sure they should publish for NOAA peer review.
That would make it something to be noticed.
Has that happened, I don't think so, not every scientist agrees on everything and I am sure there is someone who could champion this through the process.
We count on scientists to openly discuss this, and some have.
But I just came back from Switzerland where a 12,000 year old glacier is disappearing at an accelerating rate over the last few decades, enough that I can see the change and the layers can be measured in how many years they contain.
I hope it's just a cycle, but why not clean up our act just in case?