I'm not in support of using the minority report. I would quibble about basically flat and could argue that some of the slopes qualify, but thanks for pointing out the data link to get the slope of the line.
I think the more likely issue is just a matter of bias, not deliberate malfeasance. It's really hard to see errors in something when you get the results you expect. For TOBS adjustments for USHCN in particular, a mathematical artifact from the way they try to correct for it seemed more likely. That's based solely on my intuition as a mathematician though. Since we know they have engaged in deliberate efforts to conceal disconfirming evidence, and to punish journals for publishing papers whose conclusions they didn't like, I don't consider malfeasance completely implausible.
It's interesting to just plot the trendline of various sets. I especially find it interesting when you do so from the year I suggested previously, 2002
CRU Global Average is how they described in on their page. Going by the link, it was HADCRUT3. Which shoes only
.01C over the period. They didnt specifiy variance adjusted or not, and their choice of endpoints were on specific months, so i'm going to go with some cherry picking there as well.
I meant to include this in my previous line. The way NOAA wrote that note in 2008 did not exclude peak to trough periods of 15 years or longer. It's a reasonable exclusion to make though, so I decline to hold that against them.