The red line....
I won't repeat the relevant points made in Anthony Watts' piece - David Rose in the UK's Mail on Sunday has a piece on the matter too.
I would though challenge the concept that this is NOAA data - it isn't actual "data" - as in actual measurement - it is an example of prejudiced and dishonest manipulation of readings designed to produce a "politically useful result" - and the dog ate the computer ... sheesh...
The obliging bureaucrats at NOAA have busied themselves churning a whole series of AGW confirmation pieces aimed at supporting the last administration's policies - some well founded but misrepresented - others completely fraudulent and contrived. All served to prop up policy initiatives which for the most part had bugger-all to do with saving the planet and a lot to do with ideological goals.
Here at Avoncliff North Mill we are inured to the antics of bureaucrats seeking to justify their wonkily contrived assertions in the service of their arbitrary self serving decisions - and I like to think we can spot BS quite accurately - not that much skill is required in this case - the sods just made it up.
There's one thing about congenital liars - they can't stop themselves.... There will be more embarrassing stuff leaking out related to fiddling the evidence for Climate Change and Global Warming. It's pretty clear that the folk involved should actually be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. A random commenter gives us - "Karl et al reached the required conclusions by the wrong methods"
Further reading at Dr Judith Curry's ( School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.) blog - HERE . Quite a lot of sparks and smoke and mirrors and things.... in the comments.