Unfortunately for you, the argument that was made, by me, was precisely and accurately stated as to being referential to one data set. The blind arrogance in ignoring that claim and it's statistical verification was ignored by the Warmers resident here whom then I can only call Deniers on the basis of their actions.
Frankly I don't know that 0.18F rise in 18 years rises to the point of statistical significance, but you are welcome to show that it does.
Your several other disjointed arguments thrown out are unrelated to the actual claim made.
Unless you would like to misrepresent the claim made and then proceed with a strawman argument?
lol...
Some people on this forum deny "the fact that there has been no warming in 19 years" , therefore "Warmers are Deniers"?
Claiming "warmers are deniers" is not a logical conclusion. Perhaps "some warmers are deniers" is a more useful statement.
I assume you accept the obvious truth of "all warming-deniers are deniers".
I have some questions about your "precisely and accurately stated" argument that was based on one data set
You claim a single data set as to be decisive proof?
Why do you think such a single data set to be decisive enough to be unequivocally accepted as proof of non-warming?
Now that particular data set has been shown to be incorrect and has been adjusted. Is your "precisely and accurately stated" argument still relevant?
Whether or not "0.18F rise in 18 years rises to the point of statistical significance" is important is probably less relevant than the justification for your argument is no longer useful.
No-one should claim global warming to be 100% predictable or linear. Meterologists often can't even predict tomorrow.