I'm tired so I'll try to keep this short

- 'Changing' data is standard in all science. The issue is that unqualified people who don't understand the scientific process or language provide critique about said science. An example can be found in laypeople claiming that 'evolution is just a theory'. Well, colloquially, theories have an entirely different meaning than scientifically. An example of 'changing' data without doing so incorrectly is in the thing that mcat posted a couple months back. Upon even further review, I think the specific process is called 'smoothing', and it's completely standard. But don't tell that to people unqualified to provide an opinion because they shall still provide their unqualified opinion

- As for Muzz's graph, I'm not sure what he's trying to say with it. In fact, I'm not sure he knows what he's trying to say with it. Why? Because geophysicists aren't even sure about what it says. They're not even sure that our ability to detect CO2 PPM in the geologic records holds accurate above a certain level (which is found in that graph). Usually that graph is used by the uneducated to show that there is no correlation between CO2 and temp, but that ignores basic physics and that when ALL the data is presented (without cherry picking like deniers are incapable of not doing) it clearly illustrates that there is an incredible correlation with CO2 and temp

Here's a video explaining

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU