either the data is right or wrong.
You can cherry-pick data to get the results you want, especially in a situation with many variables. The Heatland Institute doesn’t have the greatest cred in the scientific community.
Quoting from Media Matters for America:
"Heartland Institute does not disclose its donors, but internal documents obtained in February reveal that Heartland received $25,000 from the Charles Koch Foundation in 2011 and anticipated $200,000 in additional funding in 2012. Charles Koch is CEO and co-owner of Koch Industries, a corporation with major oil interests. Along with his brother David Koch, he has donated millions to groups that spread climate misinformation. Heartland also receives funding from some corporations with a financial interest in confusing the public on climate science. ExxonMobil contributed over $600,000 to Heartland between 1998 and 2006, but has since pledged to stop funding groups that cast doubt on climate change.
Despite their industry ties and lack of scientific expertise, Heartland Institute fellows are often given a media platform to promote their marginal views on climate change. Most visible is James Taylor, a lawyer with no climate science background who heads Heartland’s environmental initiative. Taylor dismisses “alarmist propaganda that global warming is a human-caused problem that needs to be addressed,” and suggests that taking action to reduce emissions could cause a return to the “the Little Ice Age and the Black Death.” But that hasn’t stopped Forbes from publishing his weekly column, which he uses to spout climate misinformation and accuse scientists of “doctoring” temperature data to fabricate a warming trend. It also hasn’t stopped Fox News from promoting his misinformation."
either the climate cooled, warmed or stayed the same.
If you look at the entire timeline, it warmed. If, however, you do as the Institute did, and look at a section of the timeline starting with one of the warmest spots, and picking a low-temperate area for the end, then it appears to have cooled.
That’s cherry-picking.
The global warming models do not account for the current period of cooling.
There is no period of cooling.
It isn’t cooling. Just because a think-tank funded by companies that have a vested interest in people thinking environmental concernts are bogus says it’s cooling, and know how to be very vocal, they’re not right. The overwhelming majority of meterologists/oceanologists/climate scientists agree that it’s happening, and it’s getting worse.
the best analogy I heard is the Storm Dice. It goes something like this:
Let’s suppose you’ve got a pair of regular six-sided dice. Roll them and find the sum. On 2-4, you have a milder-than-average storm year. On a 5-9, you have an average year. On a 10-12, you have a worse-than-average storm year.
That’s how it’s worked for a long time.
Climate change takes both dice and changes the 2s on both dice to 6s.
You can still get mild years, but they’ll come about much less often. The rough years will come about a lot more often.
But any given rough year could have occurred before climate change occurred; and a mild year can occur despite climate change.
Where is GIGO Buster when we need him? 
Which scientist has said that? I would like to read that paper.
See Magiver’s initial post #13.
The claim that “global warming stopped in 1997/1998” falls apart pretty fast assuming that you were actually alive in 1997/1998 and have enough of a long-term memory to recall that it was an El Nino year, and the most extreme El Nino year in recent history at that.
Except there hasn’t been a current period of cooling, unless you cherry pick your data. The warmest years on record are in order 2010, 2005, 1998, 2003, 2002, 2006, 2009, 2007, 2004, and 2012. Hard to say it has been cooling when the top ten warmest years are all within the past 15 years.
Likewise lets look at temperatures by decade as they varied from the 20th century mean.
1900’s : -0.26 °C
1910’s : -0.28 °C
1920’s : -0.18 °C
1930’s : -0.04 °C
1940’s : +0.04 °C
1950’s : -0.02 °C
1960’s : -0.01 °C
1970’s : -0.00 °C
1980’s : +0.18 °C
1990’s : +0.31 °C
2000’s : +0.51 °C
We can see that the last decade was warmer than the previous, which was warmer than the previous decade, which was warmer than the previous decade and so on. Aside from the 1940s every decade for a century has been warmer than the previous.
The only way you can declare that we are in a period of cooling is by picking very specific data points and use only a single measurement. The current one the deniers like is the surface temperature mean running from Nov 2002 to Nov 2012. It looks scientific but it is misleading. Natural patterns can and do obscure the data in the short term. But when you look at multiple decade numbers the trend line still remains clear.
I love the Escalator graphic from Skeptical Science. Where, as they put it, “Isn’t it strange how five periods of cooling can add up to a clear warming trend over the last 4 decades?”
Amazing how climate change skeptics, having access to the same data as scientists, always see the reasons why the scientists are wrong when said scientists do not.
No wonder they think there’s a conspiracy.
Amazing how Phil Jones said ‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’ Is he worried? Not yet. Why? He moved the goal posts back 5 more years.
Yeah, maybe not.
Hmmmm… I see the OP as trying to wring a flood out of a damp cloth. The linked article contains almost no data pertinent to the thrust of the question/argument presented.
Thanks, I read that, but I found it unsatisfying. He does not lay out any data and does not explain how he came to his conclusions. It’s almost like he hasn’t published a scientific paper before… What instrumentation did he use, how was it calibrated, what are his error bars? I don’t know what university he got his degree (physics? meteorology?) from, but they didn’t do a very good job with this guy when it comes to presenting data to prove his thesis.
…
OK, I just read it again and I finally figured out that this guy is not doing original research and is basing his conclusions on someone else’s work. I logged into Thomson Reuters Web of Science (an academic citation index, the world’s largest, having over 40 million records from over 11,000 published journals and 12,000 annual conferences) and did searches and it looks like his data is coming from a single source. Specifically this paper (pdf reprint) by Don Easterbrook, a retired geology professor who has done a bunch of modelling (see the paper) and predicts that the earth is going into a cooling phase.
I feel better now. I’ll admit, when those lying liberal douchebags at NASA and NOAA pointed out earlier this year (pdf) that 9 of the last 10 years are among the hottest 10 on record and that it had been 36 years since we had a year that was cooler than average I felt like that just maybe they were right and weren’t just trying to make money by destroying the American economy. And when that RINO Richard Muller guy (funded by the Koch brothers; boy, I bet they are going to look deeper into a guys ideology before they hire another scientist!) said warming was real it also gave me pause. But since this retired geology professor’s model predicts that the earth is going to cool due to multidecadal oscillations in ocean temperature, I am going to blow off all those other scientists that obviously don’t know shit! Thanks!
If the question/argument is related to our ability to predict long range large scale weather pattern changes, then it seems pertinent (somewhat, still a small sample).
And I think the valid point is: don’t make predictions about things you don’t have the ability to predict.
This says nothing about whether global warming is real or not.
Alas, poor yorick73, not having good sources of information gives you ignorance. 
And **L. G. Butts, Ph.D. **took care of clueless Easterbrook. What I see now is that many of the “skeptics” never seem to learn to dismiss rotten sources of information.
As for the OP. That was a monster straw man. For several years climate scientists reported that regarding the number of hurricanes and tornadoes in a season the best science out there was uncertain, one big reason was that things like increasing wind-shear from a warming planet could actually stop several hurricanes from forming.
For several years scientists reported that uncertain number of hurricanes. (Of course you have to realize that many skeptical sources are in reality asking all to gamble with our future) But regarding the intensity of the hurricanes, there is evidence that they will be stronger.
The problem remains elsewhere, scientists report that at the same time there is uncertainty in the number of hurricanes, it is much more certain that more human made CO2 and other global warming gas emissions will give us more severe droughts, more forest fires and depending on the location, more flash floods. And then there is ocean acidification, the point here is that even if scientists are uncertain of the umber of hurricanes to come, the problems that are more likely to appear are still in the pipeline.
The same sources of information that bet that hurricanes will be less are the same that are attempting to mislead people on the “apparent” cooling.
I know I would not feel as lucky knowing how wrong those “skeptics” are, they keep forgetting that they are like unethical doctors not minding the addition of “steroids” into the atmosphere.