Again, I always saw people start at 1997. Maybe I missed ones on sites you posted one. If so, I stand corrected. People who were quickly shown to be obviously lying said "1998!!!!!!", and everyone else with a valid argument used 1997.
I'm afraid that's not the case, the people using 1997 are the same charlatans who used to use 1998. Here's the key thing thing, they're choosing the start point so they can get the trend they want. It's literally the opposite of science, they have conclusions and they just trying things until they find something that looks like it supports their conclusion.
I googled for "temperature graph 1997", clicked the link for images, and it was the first graph on the results page. It had the range I was looking for, and a couple notes on it, so I used it. Whatever conspiracy theory you want to make of that is fine by me.
That should be informative for you, then. You searched for "temperature graph 1997" and the first person you found is a raging climate change denier.
I am not the one that made the graph.I agree it is a stupid comparison, but you will have to ask the site why they chose to use temps from different months for that point.
I don't actually need to do that, I already know why they did it, so they could claim that there's no warming trend. The fact that the author is transparently incompetent just makes his bumbling more amusing.
I used the graph because it started in 1997, not in 1998 as the AC claimed was the cherry picked starting point for all anti-agw arguments.
But he didn't say that, he asked if Jane Q. Public had ever used 1998 in an argument to claim that there had been no warming. I can't be bothered to look for it, but I'm pretty certain she has and the AC has her dead to rights on using a double-standard, when El Nino years are exception when they show things she doesn't want to see and normal when they show what she does want to see.
You don't even mention that the graph does show a warming trend. Why ignore that nugget? You must have some diabolical reason for ignoring it.
I didn't mention that the start and end temperatures are also obviously mislabelled as well to claim that there isn't a warming trend despite it being obvious that there is one. There are just so many errors in that graph...
But it turns out it isn't really a case of "1998!!!!!!!!!" after all.
They started a trend line on 1998, 1998 was one of the strongest El Ninos on record, 2004-2005 was one of weakest. If you start a trend line on an outlier, you will always get a deceptive result, so yes, it is clearly a case of "global warming doesn't exist because of 1998".