Curve-smoothing is done all the time. I remember being taught to do it with French Curves in High School. I just pulled that graph from google imaging. You can always right click on it, you know. I would agree that that little exclamation mark means that someone had an axe to grind on that "popularized" smoothed graph.
"So not trusting the peer review process when it comes to global warming means that we must believe that other graph? Nice logical leap. I'm sure you can do better than that."
Don't put words in my mouth, Suh, and don't make illogical leaps. The 125-year data is undoubtedly pretty accurate, since we had actual instruments in the air and water. Reviewing one set of data does not imply rejection of the other data. I'm sure you can do better than that. As I see it, the "illogical leap" being made is that from this tiny 125-year sample of a very long period of climate changes, we can do any doom-predicting. We may in fact be doomed, but it's hard to tell from the data thus far.
The main premise I was trying to convey was: "Hmmmmm...."
And speaking of curve-smoothing, I wonder how many "hockey sticks" could be found in the long-term data if we had more precise direct information. It was admittedly derived by imputation from other phenomena, but, as I said, the cyclic nature has been accepted for many decades before global warming became an environmental issue.
I have no axe to grind either way, however, whence the "Hmmmmm..."
Terry, 230RN