Why bcollins should I graph data when it's already been done AND proves my point AND is from a source you find reputable What is the point? It's overkill.

You first bash the NOAA as disreputable. I just posted your own quote to that effect:

"The thing is NASA and NOAA got caught fudging the numbers as have other "scientists" ....so what do they have to do to get you to question them? They got caught LYING, FACT."

And then you embrace them as reputable when it suits you:

"So you're saying NOAA is NOT a good source?"

So essentially, you are all over the place with your opinion, contradicting yourself left and right.

So why should you examine the data yourself? When you clearly can't decide if you trust the experts, then your best recourse is to do the damn analysis yourself. You are right - it has already been done - both in a scientifically defensible manner and in a way that commits egregious scientific mistakes. You keep picking one without looking at the other.

In fact, you presented one graph that clearly rebutted your own claim!

This is why you should do it yourself. See what your conclusions are based on your work, since you clearly can't decide if you trust the experts or not.

And while we're at it - answer this question, with a SIMPLE yes or no:

Do you believe the NOAA is a reputable source of information about climate science?