> you say the report is lying

I never did any such thing. I just said that
(1) their graph data was good but (2) their
concern about extreme values was bad. Both
(1) and (2) are plainly obvious and need no
"counter-evidence".

I don't
trust the NYT, but I didn't say that they
were "lying".

> making empty claims

I made no claims except the obvious one that
the NYT was emphasizing extreme values which,
clearly for such data analysis, is wrong.

The argument about global warming is
totally clear, "settled": No one knows
what the climate will be in 10, 50, or
100 years for any scenarios having to do with
humans.

Proof: Look at the results of the climate
computer models; they are in fairly good agreement
and predicted that today the temperatures would
be much higher. They were wildly wrong. QED

Why were the models so wrong? For the technical
part, assuming that the work was done honestly
(and I don't really believe that), Freeman
Dyson has a remark, I don't recall precisely,
that maybe the problem was the models didn't
do well modeling the effects of the biological
responses or some such. So, maybe they did well
enough with the Navier-Stokes equations, Planck
black body radiation, sun spots, etc. but blew it
on green leafy vegetables. But, at least from
Freeman Dyson, we don't know.

Why would the NYT emphasize extreme values?
That's not a scientific or technical question
and, instead, is about their motivations.
My guess about their motivations, YMMV and no
technical references needed, is that they
want to pass out drama to get attention
for their ads. Believe it or not. But
a long time ago people saw that truth and the
newspapers were not good bedfellows:

Evidence:
An Andy Hardy movie from the 1930s
where, clearly, the audience accepted
that newspapers passed out nonsense.
More? Sure, Citizen Kane, which a lot
of people can find believable.

For the sources of the NYT, I didn't see
any mentioned. Sorry to say, at this point,
given Obama's political positions, I can
no longer take data from NASA or NOAA very
seriously, but that is not a biggie in this
case. I didn't claim that the extreme
values were wrong, just that, when we do have
average data, for the data analysis in
question here, extreme values add nothing
but confusion. Here I am on very solid
ground: Clearly the temperature is a
stochastic process; commonly we get new
extreme values right along
even if nothing is really
changing. There are some quite precise
results in the cases of coin flipping,
Brownian motion, and martingales.
What would be surprising would be that
we didn't get new extreme values --
if we never got more extreme values,
then we would have some bounds for the
process that we would have a tough
time believing.

"Anomaly" is still the wrong word.
Actually, with a good meaning of anomaly,
we should just f'get about them;
that is, they are anomalies, and in that
case the whole NYT article is moot.

Yes, I mentioned that it is common in
this global warming mud wrestling to say
anomaly -- it's still the wrong word.
Critical reading comprehension 101
would have us conclude, correctly in my
view, that here anomaly is intended to
mean not really from nature but from
humans and their evil CO2, and that is
value-heavy. Or, the suggestion is that
there is a reason for the anomaly, and
their claim of the reason is human CO2.
Send your money now to your favorite
green political pressure group.