First, all but the last graph are misleading because they remove the last 100 years of warming to diminish the size of the hockey blade. The last one is wrong because it only shows the last 50 years of warming, so it's also missing some of the blade. And every single graph is wrong because the time series is off 50 years. And the last graph is also misleading by artificially tacking on a global temp series to a local record.

And no, I don't have the local record for the modern period. Isn't that the point - weren't they trying to show us something about a local record in one spot? Doesn't it fail to prove their point because they can't demonstrate the modern local record?

And what the heck are they trying to prove anyway? So there's a 3C variation in local temps over thousands of years based on one local record - are they trying to claim that a 3C increase globally would be unimportant? Bring it on if that's their argument, I don't think it's a very good one, esp. because that 3C variation likely represents a shift in where heating occurs on Earth, while global warming is not a shift but a net warming.

In the end, I don't see much in their argument that's accurate or meaningful.