The study I linked to makes no such argument. That is a straw-man. What the study shows is that surface temperature warming has been about half of what an average of all models projected. (Note that "surface temperature" is actually atmospheric temperature near the surface.) Regardless of whether there changes happening elsewhere, the models still got it wrong. That is the point. The models are flawed.

I admit that I had missed your second link. But this is hardly proof of anything. You brought us right back to the original issue: whether (and how) the datasets like GISS, HadCRUT etc. have been manipulated. It isn't valid to use that data as proof of itself. In order to demonstrate anything you have to compare it to something else. Like, for example... satellite data!

I don't know why you can only assume that. Criticism of that purported "study" are all over the place. Here are two examples from a climate scientist. And there are more. Many more. Which are very easy to find with any search engine. Probably the most relevant comment, which many of these criticisms state in various ways, is the following (yes, it's Monckton but pay attention to what he says, not who he is):

That does make sense. But the interesting thing is, we already know there are flawed procedures in their improved procedures (reference the containment failures in recent years), so I would argue that they are actually increasing public risks by doing it this way.

I could be wrong. Maybe there are still really big, undiscovered holes in their procedures that need to be fixed. But there are already pretty big known holes.

What I am wondering is: why do they even care whether the pathogens in the vials are actually what is on the labels?

They're trying to verify one endangerment of pubic health by further endangering public health.

I mean, they're not even saving money. Incinerate the lot, using the standard procedures for doing so, and have done with it.

I used to be the same way, until one user became abusive.

Of course I did. There are several issues with them. The ones I will mention are:

First, they're from SkepticalScience. Now, I don't normally indulge in arguments that someone might misconstrue as ad-hominem, but SkepticalScience's involvement in the recent, blatant debacles regarding "97% consensus" seriously puts their scientific integrity to question in my mind. I mean, that was a statistical thing that a high-schooler probably could not have unintentionally screwed up quite that badly. All evidence says it was pure statistical garbage being paraded as fact. To have perpetrated that -- I'm just going to call it "blunder" here -- while at the same time criticizing someone else's statistics seems pretty damned hypocritical on their part.

Second, in case you hadn't noticed, they aren't graphs of the same thing at all. Which makes your whole argument a straw-man.

Third, the article continues their habit of pushing the idea of "increasing catastrophic weather events" which most climate scientists today say is not very credible. (IPCC AR 5 report: "low confidence".) Further, not only has that NOT been observed, we have been in a long period of record-low cyclonic energy, world-wide, for decades. If anything, there has been the opposite trend from what the alarmist projections said we would see. The United States hasn't had a anything classed as a major hurricane for a near-record period of time, and Florida has recently set a new all-time record duration with no hurricanes at all.

You tell me. You're the one spouting all this conspiracy stuff, not me.

If you would like some more information about the gross INaccuracy of climate models over the last 1-2 decades, I suggest you read this article: Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years, which was published in Nature Climate Change in 2013. According to that paper, the average amount that all 117 models that were studied overestimated warming was 100%. That's... well, not very accurate. A projection of no warming at all would not have been significantly less accurate than what the models actually projected. (Although in the other direction of course.)

This is what the lead author had to say about the paper and its publication:

1. Reviews
Our commentary was reviewed by 4 anonymous peers selected by the journal and underwent 2 major revisions and one minor revision over the course of 6 months. It was also internally reviewed by 3 colleagues in my Centre. It was not solicited by the journal.

2. Originality
To my mind there's a difference between what people think they know through popular discourse (which is perfectly fine), and what they actually know after weighing the evidence provided in original peer review literature (which is better). Some aspects of our commentary were known by some, and other aspects were known by few or none.

3. Uncertainty
Several sources of uncertainty in several contexts are considered in our commentary. These a laid out in detail in the Supplementary Information file that accompanies our commentary. Our specific estimate of the observed GMST trend and uncertainty for the period 1998-2012 is based on monthly-mean data and takes into account serial correlation (as described in my co-authors book titled "Statistical Analysis in Climate Research"). I can't vouch for the Skeptical Science Trend Calculator, but I do note that with it one obtains identical trends and uncertainties regardless of whether monthly-averaged or running-averaged data is used.

4. Cherry-picking
This is not issue with our commentary having considered all start years from 1980 to 1998, and having explicitly accounted for several known signals of natural climate variability (e.g. ENSO and volcanic eruptions).

5. Global warming
On second thought perhaps we should have titled our commentary "Overestimated global surface warming over the past 20 years", although perfection can only be an aspiration.

6. Spatial coverage
The models were sampled only where observations exist.

I will add myself that (6) is only reasonable, since unlike NCDC they recognized that it's not responsible to try to compare something against nothing.

Never mind. I didn't realize TWC was actually a different company now.

But WTF?

TWC cites "regulatory risk" over a Murdoch acquisition, but didn't over Comcast?

This raises the possibility that they weren't being completely honest. (Duh.)

I don't know why I didn't think of it earlier, but it finally occurred to me that I can change the topic header away from the one YOU originally put on this little... um... show of yours.

s/think/thing

This is a ridiculous claim. Even if Spencer did "cherry pick" his sources, even when you take the others into account it doesn't "all match up", at all. It doesn't even come close. Even the IPCC admits that.

I am implying nothing of the sort. The ONLY think I was implying was that the climate models are flawed. I neither claimed or implied any kind of "conspiracy".

Re: "evading" your questions: that's clearly your own point of view.

I asked you before, but you seem to have forgotten: after the crap you've done, what possible motivation do you think I might have to answer any of your questions?

I did so when it served my own purposes. And I'm done. Bye now.

Thanks for gathering them all up for me. But I don't think those constitute "suggesting" anything. I'd have to read them all more carefully before I made up my mind. Though I admit I have said in the past that I thought you were sock-puppeting. For the simple reason that I had evidence you were sock-puppeting.

See, while I admit I have made mistakes at times, unlike some people I've encountered I don't deliberately lie about people in public, or try to claim they say or wrote things other than what they actually did.

I already told you: your assumptions are of no interest to me.

(And your desperation is showing rather badly. Tsk.)

I think you have pretty much given me the information I need now. I have no further reason to answer any of your questions at this time.

Unless you can think of something else you want to blurt out that I may find useful.

I guess I should say one more thing, although I shouldn't have to:

I am tired of responding to these fishing expeditions of yours. Go away and leave me alone. FUCK OFF!!!

And don't try to pretend I said that to someone who was trying to have a civil discussion with me. Your intent has been transparent, and anything but civil. You deserve nothing more.