Do a comparison between previous releases of NOAA data and newer releases.
Yes, some of it has been changed. The reasons for this (identification and elimination of calibration errors) have been published, and the methods too. If you have a problem with the methodology, rather than just bitching about the results, then be more specific.
There are systematic trends introduced.
Your opinion. Some calibrations have enhanced (not introduced) an existing trend, some have mitigated it. But the results are what they are; unless you can provide better data, or at least offer a convincing (to real climatologists) explanation as to why the calibrations performed cannot be valid, then there's no reason to suppose they reduce the data quality, instead of enhancing it as claimed.
NOAA is the source of their data
And yet, the HadCRUT, GISTEMP, and BEST datasets are also freely available, many analyses are based on these, and all agree closely with NOAA's results. A huge array of different, independent lines of observations all confirm and substantiate their conclusions. Again, where is your data?
do you understand the meaning of the word "Lysenkosim"
Lysenko had political support but no data. Climate change has a huge amount of data behind it, from many different nations. Claiming political interference in the process from all these governments (with nothing more than unsubstantiated claims about "undesirable" research being underfunded) just makes you look like another yet loony conspiracy theorist.
There's no shortage of evidence of private and corporate millions being funnelled to discredit AGW, so funding obviously isn't the hurdle you claim - yet so far the only serious attempt by sceptics at providing an "impartial" analysis ended up backing the mainstream conclusions anyway. Data talks; bullshit has to resort to FUD on the internet.
Uncertainties are hugely important.
Of course, but neither do they render results "useless" - particularly when confirmed by other, independent lines of evidence. Even large uncertainties can provide clear evidence of a trend; only the degree of that trend is still uncertain.
TCS is observable, and we now have 36 years of measurements
How? Cite these TCS "measurements", please.
ANY values that are contra to the hypothesis invalidate the hypothesis
First, we still only have your baseless opinion that any hypotheses have been invalidated, as you have yet to cite specific data (or even a specific hypothesis - are you really still claiming the world has not been warming?).
Second, the vast majority of climatologists remain entirely unconvinced by any supposedly-contrary points argued by the "sceptics"; why is this? You claim they're all in a global conspiracy. Far more likely that they simply know something you don't (as they should, since they've spent considerably more time in their field than you).
Third, in any complex field relying on statistical models, whether climatology or particle physics, outlier values always exist. In fields where underlying randomness is a major factor and probabilistic analyses are required to establish evidence, then a handful of values that don't fit cleanly into the centre of the bell-curve do not disprove anything - and claims that suggest that show nothing more than wilful oversimplification. A full analysis of all the data is required to establish the trends behind the randomness - and so far, every such comprehensive analysis has supported the warming trend.
Do you know that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has determined that CAGW is not happening?
Wrong, and your claim (no doubt parroted from Heartland via Watts et al) was refuted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences themselves, three years ago. Shows how willing you are to accept anything that fits your beliefs, rather than actually check for yourself. Do your own homework.
It always comes back to the same thing. Deniers never produce data of their own - all they ever do is attempt to cast doubt on existing data that doesn't fit their own pet hypothesis. You're doing exactly the same. Get back to us when & if you can produce some original data that actually supports your position.