That article is easy to interpret. Here are my cliff notes:

- If the data doesn't support some aspect of AGW, it has uncertainty. Satellites have orbital drift and weather balloons are affected by daytime heating. (Note, when there is data to support AGW, "bad" data is simply thrown out and "good" data shows "high certainty")

- Short term trends support the hypothesis (e.g. "we are on the right track") while long term trends are uncertain. (Note: When long term trends support AGW, then short term trends are "noise")

- If an aspect of AGW is not supported by data, then it really wasn't important to the AGW hypothesis in the first place so we can just move on and concentrate on what data does give support.

______________________________________...

And I have used my handy SKS translator for the following:

- "The hot spot is not a unique greenhouse signature and finding the hot spot doesn't prove that humans are causing global warming."

Translation: If the hotspot was found, it would support AGW theory. If it is not found, it doesn't matter.

- "...that leaves spurious long-term biases as the most likely culprit."

Translation: When short term trends don't support the AGW theory (e.g. global surface temperature), the problem is natural variability or noise. When long term trends don't support the AGW theory, the problem is the data.

- "... if it turns out the long-term hot spot is not as strong as expected, the main question will be why do we see a short-term hot spot but not a long-term hot spot?"

Translation1: The science is settled but not really all of it, just the important parts like the ones where the data is cooperating.

Tranlsation2: We weren't actually wrong, we just need to move the goalposts again and now we'll be right.

Translation3: The data doesn't matter since it is obviously in error.

The science is settled. All you have to look at is the thermometer and try and figure out why a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels has only mustered up a 0.62C increase in the global average temperature to date (as of Aug 2013) and to my knowledge has never been higher than 1C above the established global average temperature, but that is why the IP CC was established. Right? They are still looking for the answer to the question : "Do human emissions have a great impact on temperatures?" They sure are trying to imply that they do, but I'm afraid that actual temperature readings will always keep them scratching their heads.

There's no hot spot!

0.62C is the current global average temperature above the established normal temperature. That's all that they have.

There are a few "debunkings" at SKS that do not pass the logic test. This is one of them.

The IPCC has said (in AR4) things like: "Tropospheric warming is detectable and attributable to anthropogenic forcing ...", "Simultaneous tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling due to the influence of anthropogenic forcing has been observed" and "There has been robust detection and attribution of anthropogenic influence on tropospheric warming ..."

The models predicted the hotspot. Observations show that there is no hotspot. Any normal person would conclude that the model prediction is not correct. However, in what passes for climate science it is considered that the problem is, in fact, with reality instead.

The IPCC originally pointed to the hotspot being a sign of anthropogenic influence. This has been subesquently played down and it is now said to be a sign of any type of warming. They gave up on using thermometers to find the temperature increase and used wind shear instead in a desparate attempt to find some missing heat.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...

http://www.climatedialogue.org/the-missi...

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/pr...

Many of the arguments at SS are similarly unconvincing. I think they don't even have a section on use of upside-down data, which is surprising.

Ottawa Mike, you left out their use of refuted when they meant rebutted for any paper that argues against a skeptic claim. Not sure what term they use for the reverse, other than 'denier'. Turns out SS uses the term 'denier' because they consider themselves close to the truth.