That doesn't feel like a particularly strong response to ESR's claim. Taken as a response to that claim, it feels kind of like: "our predictions were wildly inaccurate, but it's a complicated system with short-term and long-term factors and the short-term factors caused more warming just before we made our predictions and less just after, and that threw us off".
Which doesn't inspire confidence. If you can't predict the short-term factors, you need to widen your confidence intervals. I feel like at the very least, you should be making predictions like "conditional on these factors staying within these bounds, we expect this amount of warming". Then if that condition doesn't hold, you don't lose any bayes points.
(I recognize that the article wasn't written as a response to ESR, I'm not even sure it was a response to the same thing that ESR is talking about. But you offered it as a response, so that's how I'm evaluating it.)
The greatest changes in the new NOAA surface temperature analysis is to the ocean temperatures since 1998. This seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements – ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a warming trend. Nevertheless, the NOAA team finds a substantial increase in the ocean surface temperature anomaly trend since 1998. ... The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target. So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.
------
The link above also includes more on some of the specifics of the new adjustments NOAA made.
Judith sure knows how to play to the gallery.
The science behind climate change has nothing to do with any personality or politics and everything to do with physics and atmospheric sciences. Or are you going to debate that the radiative forcing of an atmosphere with CO2 at 450ppm is magically less than one with 250ppm?
The accusations you mention completely flopped and the "accused" were exonerated by half a dozen independent committees and investigations.
Climate scientists do not on the whole make a lot of money for their level of technical skill and training- if any climate scientist was "in it for grant money", they simply would switch to data analysis in the private industry or another field. Climate science is a diverse and huge field with many research areas that existed long before our awareness of climate change, and researchers' careers do not depend on the current climate change consensus- it's not like every university would simply fire their Earth Sciences department, or the NSF would stop funding Earth Science grants, if the climate was not warming. Additionally, you don't seem to understand how the grant process works- grants are awarded before results are obtained, chosen by committees of scientists, and a majority of climate science grants do not even write proposals concerned with future predictions. Finally, the irony is of course, the handful of denialist scientists are the only people who have been explicitly (and universally) linked to outside conflict of interest funding in their work.
Al Gore did not "help invent" any part of climate science, he merely brought popular attention to the issue.
Your failure boils down to the following: you have no perspective of the magnitude, operations, or workings of the scientific community. You have accused tens of thousands of scientists, safely employed at universities across the world, in countries with wildly different politics and governmental situations than the US, of conspiring together to produce dozens of scientific papers every week and an entire worldwide network of data collection, from satellites to buoys to promote a false theory, all of which gives them essentially nothing to gain.
Have you ever read a journal in the Earth Sciences? Can you even name one? If not: you haven't even begun to examine the scientific matters at hand. When you realize how wholly out of your field you are, it should become clear that your concerns are rooted in anti-intellectualism and rabid ideology, and nothing else.
http://nautil.us/issue/25/water/five-things-we-still-dont-kn...
Moreover, if the premise is wrong, the conclusion can only be false, that's basic fallacy.
Follow those models like they actually say anything is like giving a driver's license to a good racing gamer (NFS, GTA, etc.). It's just simulation, it's not real.
Weird how a "quack" manages to get her work into top-tier peer-reviewed journals, isn't it.
When one side of an argument descends to ad hominem as their first move, it is a sure sign their side has lost the argument.
Unfortunately, ACC is likely real and deserves a strong policy response. People like you, who admit to having no actual argument for their position, are actively damaging the cause of science and good policy.
Your idea that this is an ad hominem is intellectually dishonest. Curry has been criticized by the vast, vast majority of climate scientists for her outrageous and ignorant interpolation of other climate data.
Finally, there is nothing "weird" about people who are quacks publishing things on Nature. Nature is not the end-all of scientific publications, and it's not by any means a specialty publication in the field of climate science.