I have learned to not play their game, but to just present them with data. Let them go out and try and find contradictory information from reputable sources. Of course, interpretation is always subjective and there will be some valid and conflicting data, all science needs to be challenged vigorously, and no one is right all the time. And there is certainly no guarantee that ALL pro-AGW research is correct or even honest. That goes without saying.

But in a non-specialist forum like this I present dramatic and unambiguous data, like the satellite ice series from NSIDC and JAXA, and the PIOMAS Arctic ice volume reports. If there is anything wrong or misleading about this information then it could be pointed out for discussion and debate. There is also much more data out there that supports our case, but if I don’t follow it clearly and easily, I don’t expect any in our forum to be able to either. The data are consistent and in standardized formats, and easily verified in reputable websites. They are straightforward, simple to analyze, and do not require specialized training to understand.

A lot of the corroborating information supports this, but avoid bringing this in; again you will be dragged deeper and deeper into the bog of scientific debate in obscure journals about subtleties and off-the-wall topics, like ice core assay protocols. And that’s exactly what they want! You can’t win that fight against them, they spend all their time looking for obscure alternate facts and they document them meticulously and misinterpret them outrageously. Remember the infamous proxy Scandinavian bog fossils? And no matter how many shrinking glaciers you report, they will always be able to locate at least one that isn’t. They will report every minor error, exaggeration or mistake as proof that the entire AGW concept is not only wrong, but a deliberate falsehood concocted by the enemies of Freedom. And of course, you’ll have to track down each and every one to make sure it hasn’t been cherry picked or taken out of context.

I present the latest updates on the polar weather every month, in a way that it can be compared with the long term trends, and from sources that can be easily verified. You will note the denialists stay away. They can’t compete on level turf. Are my presentations complete and definitive? Probably not, I’m no expert, and neither is my intended audience. But I try to present information and sources that suggest further research and study and easy verification. I stay away from partisan sources or those who have an obvious ideological ax to grind.

http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data/

All these claims of malfeasance used the testimony of a single scientist, upset with how more senior scientists dealt with data acquisition and archiving, to paint an excruciatingly technical matter as a worldwide conspiracy. Rose made no effort to contact Karl or other members of the team (according to Karl), and outside of Bates’ conversation with him, Rose provided no corroborating evidence or relevant background for his assertions.

Despite these discrepancies, the story gained additional traction when Texas representative Lamar Smith, chair of the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, tweeted the flawed narrative and issued a press release about it:

NOAA sr officials played fast & loose w/data in order 2 meet politically predetermined conclusion on climate change

While Karl et al might reasonably be criticized for having been less than rigorous in their data documentation, their findings have been independently verified, contrary to allegations that the authors manipulated data to reach a desired conclusion:

What David Rose fails to mention is that the new NOAA results have been validated by independent data from satellites, buoys and Argo floats and that many other independent groups, including Berkeley Earth and the UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre, get effectively the same results.

Rose’s claim that NOAA’s results “can never be verified” is patently incorrect, as we just published a paper independently verifying the most important part of NOAA’s results.

As for the “distributed talking point,” it was simply the only reasonable place to find yourself after considering the input. If you’re already siding with Bates, it clearly indicates that you have a favorite axe to grind–a conclusion to support, rather than truth to find.

It has some Bates responses. “Out of the loop” is a distributed talking point.