http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.nl/2012/08/ipcc-lead-author-misleads-us-congress.html

FYI. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2012/07/13/the-heat-was-on-before-urbanization-and-greenhouse-gases/

What was extremely apparent at the time is that my colleagues and myself knew, to varying degrees of certainty and detail, that this was entirely a bogus assertion without any basis in reality whatsoever. It was known even then that the data upon which the notion was claimed to be based was at best unreliable and at worst deliberately fabricated in order to promote the hypothesis as reality and the false notion that it was well-supported by evidence to a high degree of confidence. However, any dissent from this viewpoint was invariably countered with coercion to adhere to the alleged consensus view or risk sanctions. The justification for this disruption of normal engineering, scientific and even judicial process was that science was nowadays “post-normal”, that is, that scientists and engineers were required and had a moral duty to distort or fabricate evidence in order to promote the highly contentious agenda of a political pressure groups or terrorist organisations or religious affiliations, rather than adhere to professional standards of engineers and scientists.

The full extent of the scientific component of the fraud were largely unknown to me at the time, and the political and commercial intrigue behind it was at the time was completely unknown. Even after the disclosure of the mathematical details of the fraud some years later, the political and commercial intrigue behind its conception and execution leave me bewildered, as is the audacity of those who continue to maintain to this day the reality of the hypothesis and the exposure of the fraud.

A common ploy we were taught was the mis-representation of climatic data by cherry-picking and date selection. Your choice of New York Central Park could hardly be more representative of the techniques used. First you have chosen one particular place, rather than a global average such as sea temperature. Then the particular site is open to all manner of confounding factors, being a micro-climatologically complex site consisting of a small area of parkland surrounding by an urban environment (UHI effect). This renders difficult the accurate application of “adjustments” to the raw temperature data which are needed to give a representation of the climate over a much wider area. Typically these detailed adjustments are about the same as the figures that you are trying to measure, being a fraction of a degree per century. Next you have taken the temperature from NASA’s “homogenized”data, rather than from the actual temperature recorded at the site. Far from correcting for the Urban Heat Island Effect by raising earlier temperatures, GISS made earlier temperatures even lower, thus introducing an entirely bogus warming of 1.3 degrees per century[1].

In reality, measured Central Park July temperatures got a minute amount cooler over the last 110 years (-0.1 K/cy), but you are presenting a false picture suggesting it got a lot warmer( +1.3 K/cy). You are being economical with the truth.

[1] http://i52.tinypic.com/wrm2pz.jpg, NASA/GISS

Are we looking at climate change, or are we looking at UHI effects?