sasquatch2 wrote:
Ab initio I remarked that the graph was scaled by "temperature anomoly".
No, you remarked that using the temperature anomaly "scale" misled people into believing these are temperature measurements when they're not.
Fact is, you've never bothered to actually determine what the term "anomaly" actually means in this context before spouting off about its validity. All this time you've been arguing something you don't understand at all. Sorry, but ignorance isn't a valid argument.
sasquatch2 wrote:
Due by simple definition that an anomoly is something that departs from normal----
What is the normal?
Jesus Christ, you really don't have a sweet clue what temperature anomalies are, or why they're used - get someone with half a brain to explain it to you and come back later.
sasquatch2 wrote:
5 year means are misleading.
Why? 5-year means are simply the average temperature over a 5-year period - when presented with the original data (as it always is), it's perfectly legitimate.
Try again.
sasquatch2 wrote:
The motive for this graph was to imply that a massive unprecedented temperature increase had occurred.
That doesn't change the fact that the graph presents data that exists regardless of motive. That you don't enjoy the consequences is immaterial, and you've offered no substantial reason to question its validity.
I'm still waiting for the explanation of why you continue to push US temperature data when global data is markedly different.
CKA Super Elite 
