They are two papers, 1997 & 2012. You claimed the later paper (up to 2011 data) lacked credibility because it had not been peer reviewed (by Warmists?). I went back to the original to show that it had scientific rigor. More so because it included comment that further analysis and confirmation was required (unlike some Warmist papers that claim to be the final word on the matter). The later update paper, also based on the principle of only using geologically stable stations, extended the data set up to 2011, and found the same result. So don't accuse me of fudging the facts just because the findings of a particular study don't fit YOUR EXPECTATION.
When the IPCC publishes a graph showing 7 (or whatever number) different global warming projections then at least 6 must be wrong. Would you favour the one that showed the greatest warming and accuse the others of fabricating their graphs?
