The problem is that it doesn't appear that the 'issue' is one of fraud or antipodal data or even incorrect data, but of no longer having the raw data from which the quality-controlled data was gathered. The data is still legit, it's just not known exactly the origins of each factor in creating the data due to eliminating the raw numbers. This could be something as trivial as adding a bunch of numbers together, but instead of using the specific decimal numbers you round each figure up or down. The end results would still be the same, but you would no longer have the exact originals of each individual number.

we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues
^^ This is a key statement. Just because they discarded the originals doesn't mean that they made stuff up. The adjusted data would most definitely still reflect the raw data. In fact, the adjusted, quality-controlled data is probably the kind of data that everybody uses to explain anything about climate.

Not to mention that this is from a partisan popular publication. If it gets no action in peer-reviewed journals it's worthless.

On top of that, the article doesn't give exact dates, but implies that this supposed issue took place in a finite area for a finite time period on a finite issue. This is why I mentioned Australopithecus. If we found that 5 years of climate data were completely fraudulent, it wouldn't really change anything because the other 99% of data wasn't shown to be fraudulent and the theory still fit.

But really, popular media says anything and everything at some point in time. This source is without merit. The 'problem' even seems to be completely fabricated. If I was a professional scientist I could probably very easily explain why quality-controlled, homogenized, adjusted over an entire series of collections data is completely standard. When the qualified scientific community says one thing and the unqualified out of work scientist, an economist, and a mathematician say another, I'm gonna just go ahead and stick with the former. If this article was talking about a bunch of skeptical geophysicists instead of entirely irrelevant individuals, it would have a starting point