Bruce Hoult wrote on 7/21/2015 6:08 AM:
On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 5:50:39 PM UTC+12, Paul B wrote:
"Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been
largely the result of limitations in past datasets"

Yes, if one set of datasets does not support the predetermined
view, no problem, just get new datasets, or "better" analysis,
problem is fixed .

My thoughts exactly.

It is quite apparent that these people DO NOT WANT the alleged
problem to prove to be a non problem. They cheer every time some new
evidence can be construed to suggest that we're all going to fry, and
seem quite upset every time some new evidence suggests that it's all
ok, actually.

Did either of you read the article? They did not get completely new
datasets, but used the original datasets, plus additions to them from
areas that previously had very sparse measurements. The Arctic is one of
those, and it is also an area that has warmed more rapidly than most
other places. Another thing they did was to correct for differences in
ocean temperature measurements made from buoys and ships. A third change
was adding the most recent data (2013 and 2014), which was not in the
original datasets.

All these things, and more, made a significant difference. None of this
is done in secret and simply announced. You can examine the published
paper yourself, see the methods used, and the raw data.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"

https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/...anes-2014A.pdf