Instead of reading a negative interpretation into one sentence, did you actually look into the research which is just a few clicks away? Of course you didn't.

The adjustments were in response to new data and new analysis, which you can see if you bother to look at the paper before posting ill-founded speculation. The article is pointing out that the UK did the analysis first, so NOAA was behind. You've turned this into some kind of harmonization of some other kind which just isn't there. This sets off "tamper" alarm bells only for someone who is (a) expecting to find tampering and (b) didn't do even the most trivial research to falsify their suspicions.