As I said, I'm skeptical and I don't know who these groups are that have "corrected" the processing errors or anything about them. My focus is why would these scientists in the movie be in agreement about the data? I don't think that the scenes were shot before 1998. I'm not a scientist but I have read accounts from British newspapers on how UN scientists needed to "correct" certain things (like make the small ice age or the medieval warming period disappear).
If you can name the scientists, I might have a good idea.
Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter, Richard Lindzen, Paul Driessen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and Tim Ball - are linked to American neo-conservative and right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of millions of dollars from Exxon.
Spencer and Christy are a special case -- they're good scientists but they've consistently hewn to the skeptical side in public statements. (Spencer writes for Tech Central Station.) When the errors were discovered, they fixed them. Christy has acknowledged global warming and a human contribution, but feels the human contribution is small and also thinks that public expenditures can address more pressing problems in Third World countries. It helps that he was also a missionary. Spencer has been a bit more hard-edged, but the column linked below shows that he too can be both honest and still skeptical:
Use the "Find Authors" menu, find Spencer, and read:
"Global Warming Science, or Policy?" (first page of articles)
and most especially, "Some Convergence of Global Warming Estimates". (second page of articles)
It took Fred Singer forever to acknowledge any warming; now he says its inevitable and totally natural. (??) Michaels always says the warming will be minimal, but acknowledges it. I don't feel like discussing everybody.