Bold of you to link to a conversation where you get put in your place, but ok. Since you're apparently not interested in the politifact or snopes links someone

Bold of you to link to a conversation where you get put in your place, but ok. Since you're apparently not interested in the politifact or snopes links someone else provided, here's a "primary source". In your comment you're making a stink about, you have one proper link to data from 1999, and one direct link to a later graph without context. The NASA page with the current graph, and explanations addressing the discrepancy directly below it, is here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/ https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/ But I suspect you already well knew that.