So what exactly do the graphs in this link actually show, then?
Global warming: has the rise in temperatures 'paused'? | Environment | guardian.co.uk
According to this link, the average global temperature is14.45C
2012 expected to be ninth warmest year on record | Environment | guardian.co.uk
So bear in mind that celciuls is a completely arbitrary scale.They are actually trying to show a difference between 287.6K and about 288K with average readingsfrom a massively chaotic planet.
Is it really that surprising that things vary a bit with each improvement on measuring technology and modelling methodology?
That's the 'adjusted' data - What does the unadjusted data show....?

The bit highlighted in bold is key!

If the data doesn't fit the science then simply adjust the data......
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_7-ghcn-averages.jpg
Being an actuary, you of course know about statistics and adjustments and tricks and all you are trying to do is confuse those who know less than you.
But for those who do wonder why the raw data is adjusted, try this for starters:
Original, seasonally adjusted or trend data
On No, another illusion shattered, actuaries also adjust data:I bet we lose when they do!
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/actuarial-adjustment.asp#axzz2Jf4Hzp2x
GHCN = Global Historical Climatology Network. This might be of interest:
Portal:Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shows global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 Deg C during the 100 years ending in 2005. Also goes on to say:
"Climate model projections summarized in the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report indicate that global surface temperature will probably rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 Deg C during the twenty-first century. The uncertainty in this estimate arises from the use of models with differing climate sensitivity, and the use of differing estimates of future greenhouse gas emissions. Some other uncertainties include how warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming is expected to continue beyond 2100, even if emissions have stopped, because of the large heat capacity of the oceans and the lifespan of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."
I have worked every working day with science for over 40 years and this stuff is not science. This is statistics and how they are analysed and interpreted to produce 'estimates'. If, as a senior scientist, I was shown such wildly differing results in a report (or series of reports) the results would not see the light of day and be filed away under 'ephemeral' until the science has developed enough and can actually produce more realistic forecasts.
Also, in this wilderness of statistical analysis and wildly differing estimates, how does the IPCC separate natural global warming from man-made global warming?
So, because they keep coming up with this stuff, its a conspiracy to keep the people scared and the money for more research flowing?
I give up!
Nothing wrong with adjusting data if there is appropriate reason to do so.
Adjusting temperature data to turn a declining trned into the increasing trend that you were trying to find is more dubious (at best).
There's no money in assigning the impacts to anything other than man!

So it IS a conspiracy.//static.avforums.com/styles/avf/smilies/clap.gif