Sounds like they were doing a good job keeping the crazies out, like they did with Bush and Evolution, etc.
I really don't think you have a good grasp on the scientific underpinnings at all. You reject simple linear regression in analyzing data. You need a good education in mathematics and physics to understand the principles of climate change, not just the ability to tediously shout fraud.
That "movie" segment is fraudulent and just a series of morphing from the first frame to the last. It would be of value if the tidal data were also given for the first and last frames. Wiki says: "The world's largest tidal range of 11.7 metres (38.4 feet) occurs at Burntcoat Head in the Bay of Fundy. Your "movie" could entail a huge tidal difference taken at a time only when the tidal levels matched the fradulent intent of the second photograph. Where was your "movie" done? What is the tidal range there? My gosh Pale, you shouldn't fall for these hoaxes. Anyone should know better if they are really are a "guy who grasps the science."
I'm sure that was your intent, but the later graphs also illustrate that global warming is real.
Those graphs were published in 1999! That's 13 years ago.
It looks like the older chart at the upper left is identical to the lower chart, at least to the .1 deg C level. When you say "Note the obvious differences between ... the two graphs" You don't seem to be referring to those two. If you are comparing the two upper graphs they are of course quite different because the U.S. temperature on the left is compared to global temperature on the right. The U.S. is only 2.7% of the globe. Apples and oranges. What is your point?
Getting back to the OP... For the third time I ask you where did you get the data that says there is a 2 deg C spread in the current global average temperature computations. I have only seen a 1 degree spread. What are your sources. I'm hammering on this because you have been emphatic that the temperature spread is an important factor in accepting the yearly historical data.
