Climate denier heads explode over loss of the "hiatus", 1 simple question..

It is so hard to keep up on the new terminology of the Left. Now we have "Climate deniers?" Who would deny that we have a climate? First there was global warming, now its climate change, but still warming is the central issue. Simply relabeling the issue only works on short-term memory Leftists.

I gave up caring about climate. I burn less gas because it's easier on my wallet. I recycle because I don't want to pay more at the dump.

But as far as all the climate scientists from both sides go, well they can all take their questionable data, lies, distortions, and arguments and jump in a lake. I'm done listening.

No slowdown in temps rising could be used by the anti-man made warming crowd. Would the temp increases decline when the global economy contracts?

Just saw that May was the wettest (and probably much cooler) month in 121 years for the contiguous United States. That may shoot holes in the hotter every year by a 1/100th of a degree that proves we're doomed.

Climate scientists criticize government paper that erases ‘pause’ in warming
www.foxnews.com/science/2015/06/10/clima...es-pause-in-warming/

The satellite data is compiled by two separate sets of researchers, whose results match each other closely. One team that compiles the data includes Climate Professors John Christy and Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, both of whom question Karl’s adjusted data.

“The study is one more example that you can get any answer you want when the thermometer data errors are larger than the global warming signal you are looking for,” Spencer told FoxNews.com.

“We believe the satellite measurements since 1979 provide a more robust measure of global temperatures, and both satellite research groups see virtually the same pause in global temperatures for the last 18 years,” he said.

So let me see if I have this correctly, when data that contradicts what you are looking for is ignored, then you can find what you are looking for. Does that about sum up the findings in the Karl report that you are referring to SC? Since Karl didn't like the data he's free to change it to something that he does like to suit his purposes of "progressive scientific process"?

What happens when the data does not support the narrative? Two choices; ignore it or change it.

Well, it is certainly clear who actually reads the scientific data and reports, and who uses "foxnews" as to their go to source for science matters. If one actually read the reports, as summarized by the OP, it is clear that despite the deceitful claims by Printsmith, Heartless, et al., Dr. Karl and others did not "cherry pick" their data, but using scientific methods, were able to identify built-in biases in the manner that the surface ocean temperatures had been measured. If one actually had valid criticism, it would be directed towards whether or not there actually is a bias in the previous ocean surface temperature measuring process. However, there has been absolutely no such criticism, only that it must be "political" not scientific.

In regard to the opinions of Christy and Spencer, these two represent the views of the 2 percent of climate researchers who deny global warming. Their compilation of satellite data has been repeatedly discredited in peer review studies and they have been forced to repeatedly correct their misrepresentations, particularly in 1998 2005, 2007. There are three separate groups that compile satellite data on global surface temperatures, of which Spencer and Christy operate one. The other two groups are RSS and NOAA. The problems with using satellite data includes the satellite and instrumentation change freqently as newer satellites are launched and older ones decay in orbit and use and that the satellites drift in regard to the temperature locations. It turns out that the Spencer and Christy satellite data lowballs the surface temperatures compared with the two other independent groups. The Spencer and Christy data analysis differ by a factor of three from the other two groups. It turns out that Spencer and Christy fail to accurately account for tropic diurnal drift of the satellites which causes a bias in their datasets while the other two groups do.

journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1


As pointed out in the suggested reading of the emails by the OP,
"We tested the difference between buoys and ships by comparing all the co-located ship and buoy data available in the entire world. The result was that buoy data averaged 0.12 degrees C colder than the ships. We also know that the number of buoys has dramatically increased over the last several decades. Adding more colder observations in recent years can't help but add a cool bias to the raw data. What would you recommend we do about it? Leave a known bias in the data or correct the data for the bias? The resulting trend would be the same whether we added 0.12 C to all buoy data or subtracted 0.12 C from all ship data.."

So Printsmith would have you disregard the known bias in the data so that the public would continue to be mislead by incorrect scientific data rather than applying the best science possible to better understand the effects of the continuing damage wrought to humanity by our current practices. As Pope Francis described in the recent encyclical "Laudoto Si", (even if one is not a catholic, his words do represent the teachings of Christ, as well as an understanding of the actions of man on the earth. Of course that probably makes him the dreaded "collectivist")

"This sister now cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of the goods with which God has endowed her. We have come to see ourselves as her lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will. The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life. This is why the earth herself, burdened and laid waste, is among the most abandoned and maltreated of our poor; she “groans in travail” (Rom 8:22). We have forgotten that we ourselves are dust of the earth (cf. Gen 2:7); our very bodies are made up of her elements, we breathe her air and we receive life and refreshment from her waters"

"A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events, even if a scientifically determinable cause cannot be assigned to each particular phenomenon."


"“The ecological crisis is also a summons to profound interior conversion. It must be said that some committed and prayerful Christians, with the excuse of realism and pragmatism, tend to ridicule expressions of concern for the environment. Others are passive; they choose not to change their habits and thus become inconsistent. So what they all need is an ‘ecological conversion’, whereby the effects of their encounter with Jesus Christ become evident in their relationship with the world around them. Living our vocation to be protectors of God’s handiwork is essential to a life of virtue; it is not an optional or a secondary aspect of our Christian experience"
and
“It would hardly be helpful to describe symptoms without acknowledging the human origins of the ecological crisis. A certain way of understanding human life and activity has gone awry, to the serious detriment of the world around us. Should we not pause and consider this? At this stage, I propose that we focus on the dominant technocratic paradigm and the place of human beings and of human action in the world”

You would have us believe that a more comprehensive data set is the one with the bias Dog? That defies common sense, doesn't it? Wouldn't the less robust data set be the one more likely to be hiding a bias within its numbers than a more comprehensive set of data is? That's just logical reasoning, the kind which Dr. Karl eschewed in pursuit of his predetermined destination. A more comprehensive data set is going to illuminate an existing bias, which is exactly what it has accomplished and why respected climate scientists like Professor Judith Curry at Georgia Tech and Climate Professors John Christy and Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama take issue with Dr. Karl's "adjustments" to the data to arrive at his chosen destination.

PrintSmith wrote: You would have us believe that a more comprehensive data set is the one with the bias Dog? That defies common sense, doesn't it? Wouldn't the less robust data set be the one more likely to be hiding a bias within its numbers than a more comprehensive set of data is? That's just logical reasoning, the kind which Dr. Karl eschewed in pursuit of his predetermined destination. A more comprehensive data set is going to illuminate an existing bias, which is exactly what it has accomplished and why respected climate scientists like Professor Judith Curry at Georgia Tech and Climate Professors John Christy and Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama take issue with Dr. Karl's "adjustments" to the data to arrive at his chosen destination.

As the original OP posted, do you really think that once a bias has been exposed in the data set, that the bias should be ignored? That is the entire issue here. The most robust comprehensive data set is that set forth by Dr. Karl, the surface temperature data set. What Dr. Karl et al. found and reported was that prior to the mid 90's, the surface temperature of the ocean was primarily reported by ships. Buoys began to be extensively more used in the mid 90's which correlates to the alleged "pause" in global warming. However, as Dr. Karl et al., reported, the buoys have a bias of about 1.7 degrees compared to the measurements by ships. Since most of the data from ocean surfaces shifted from the use of ships to bouys, the data showed a 'shift'. Dr. Karl et al., have determined that this shift was due to the different in the bias between ship and buoys measurements. Correcting this bias either way, by lowering the ships measurements or raising the buoy measurements showed that there was no pause.

Now you would have the correct temperatures ignored simply due to demagoguery rather than having the true temperatures used for scientific purposes. Christy, Spencer, and Curry are well known for their "go-to" status with Fox News and other climate deniers as they are in the 2% of climate researchers who deny global warming. They are hardly respected in the scientific community, particularly since Christy and Spencer have been found guilty of falsely misrepresenting their data, and have repeatedly had to "correct" their data once biases in their reporting schemes have been exposed. It is ironic that they now criticize Dr. Karl et al. for correcting biases in the data reporting scheme while they have frequently been forced to do to their reporting system. Their reporting system has been found to lowball satellite measurements of surface temperatures by a factor of 3 compared to more reputable satellite measurement systems as discussed in my earlier post.

So tell us Printsmith, do you believe that the documented biases in the data should be corrected, or should the incorrect data continue to be used?

That was the issue proposed by the OP. It is a simple question.