the site where you got your graph is the same where i got mine. and the producers of that site, the official climatological survey of the state of oklahoma, disagrees violently with your conclusions as you so conveniently fail to notice. not that that will prevent you from cherry-picking whatever information you think will help your case while conveniently ignoring all others.

and what does the graph actually prove? if any one of us had attempted to base our case on global warming with only one graph displaying only one localized parameter (summer temperatures in one state) you would have laughed us out of town, and rightly so!. the graph is, as you like to put it, purely anecdotal. the combined weight of the scientific community is not.

when pressed, you fall back on the same tired argument, the usual all-purpose excuse of climatological denialists when confronted by overwhelming professional opinion which contradicts their political paranoia. do you really expect us to believe that the entire scientific community is skewing their data and results because they are intimidated by some imaginary and undocumented coercion from the left?

if you ask me, the scenario is just the opposite, any state-appointed agency in oklahoma, a state where big oil is very influential, has to have great courage and integrity to buck the very real commercial pressures of folks like conoco and senator inhofe.

its impossible to reason with you, tb. your entire vision of the world is dominated by this sinister conspiracy no one else can see. its very failure to show itself to anyone else is all the evidence you need to convince you of its effectiveness and diabolical intentions, and the innocence and unsophistication (or is it sheer stupidity?) of your opponents. you are in a lonely place, and you have very bad companions.