What the hell was the point of this article? Everyone has it wrong? I’d be OK with that if it means we can stop talking about this phony, ginned up commie issue dressed up as an environmental cause.
The point is: It is statistically improper to use 1998 as a starting point for determining whether or not warming is happening. This is because 1998 was abnormally high and using it to determine whether a trend exists biases the result in favor of finding "no trend".
The further point of the article is that, regardless of what starting point is used, the calculated trends going back as long as 65 years result in finding that the climate models are almost certainly WRONG and predict warming that didn't happen.
If, for example, these computer climate models were used to predict the outcome of horse races, one would be tremendously better off betting against the models.