The "Hockey Stick" Graph Shown to be accurate

A couple of years ago, in 2009, a small group of Al Gore Haters, looking to discredit his constant pontificating on Climate Change, actually broke into the email accounts of some of the prominent researchers.
Therein, they found the programming code used for plotting the data:

;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

Now, I will confess to being out of the programming game for a couple of years, and my understanding of the above code is also restricted by the fact that the subroutines referenced are not available for me to review. But, I don't see anything here that screams gross "data cooking".

I see what *might* be corrections applied to data collected near population centers, which would be artificially elevated due to high radiant heat from man made objects, like tarmac, concrete and asphalt...

The resulting graph (below) had a distinct "hockey stick" shape" as the mean temperature rose in the last few decades. Skeptics claimed the shape was due entirely to the "corrections" seen above.

Well, to make a long, and highly contentious story short, those who got all worked up over the supposed data cooking hired and funded an independent team of researchers to basically run the whole thing over again from scratch.

Then a funny thing happened. Today, in fact. The results from the new, nay-sayer funded, research were published.

 The results confirm a one degree (Celsius) average rise in the overall global temperature. Some places were higher, some lower. The apparently rapid melting of the ice caps could be caused by a single degree rise from "freezing" to "not freezing", right?

I have seen some amazingly venomous attacks posted on various message boards and blogs. Some of them used "junk science" to defend their attacks. CO2 energy absorption rates, energy sources, and so on.

To my ears, these ring with the same sound as those who said that all you had to do was look out over the ocean to see where the world ended.

Sure. Empirical observation may support your argument, until somebody comes along and actually GOES where you're pointing. And, as a few seconds of reflection will show, there are those that will STILL get red in the face, call you wrong, and  criminally insane, and a threat to the safety of the world...

Even after you offer to take them to see what you've seen.