More Global Warming Bunk

I'm having trouble with this one.

Right out of the box, I'm a skeptic. The nature of the Scientific Method has always been to test the theory to see if it can be disproved (theories cannot be factually proven, since it is impossible to test for all cases - that is the root of my skepticism).. The Global Warming (or Climate Change) dogma is taken as gospel. Nowhere do the believers try to disprove the theory. Even the theory of gravity is tested by true scientists. There are no facts in science. Only theories to be disproven.

Which brings me to this article. The first thing I notice is that the years 1961-1990 are taken as the benchmark average. Why? What is special about those years? I also notice the years from 1830-2008 are shown on the graph. I'd argue that global temperature from the years 1830-1940 are probably skewed to colder because the bulk of temperature readings would necesssarily come from the northern 1/2 of the northern hemisphere. Why do I say that? Most of the population which would have maintained good, widespread records of temperature would live in that part of the world at that time. Recall that up until about 1900, much of the world remained undeveloped and or colonized by Europeans.

I also notice that there is never any uncertainty analysis in Global Warming research. Uncertainty analysis is exactly what it says and gives and idea of how accurate the data really are.

For those of you at Skeptical Science, I'm not saying anthropogenic global warming isn't happening. I'm just looking for the research a high schooler would do.