The data is fine. Constant "adjustment" is a big problem. Adjustment of New Zealand national temperature records, adjustment of Argo data, adjustment of tree ring research results, adjustment of ice core data. Some of this can be traced to a very small group of "experts", which smacks of fiddling to achieve personal aspirations. Perhaps you like being subjected, but they should leave me out of their personal aspirations.
Anything that does not conform to your preconceived opinion based solely on bias, for some people, must therefore be 'liberal'.
They aren't, but denier need to use those terms for the same reason they try to bring in religion and environmentalist's rather than the term 'science' because their main aim is to try and discredit it.
It's an old and well worn propaganda technique also being used currently in the Ukraine where the Russian's are using the terms like terrorist or radicals or even nazi's to describe the Government.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/...
The sad thing there, is Russian speakers in Ukraine buy into this and support Russia complaining about the years of oppression they have suffered, when for most of those years, they where under a Russian friendly leader who has now fled to Russia, funny how short term, people memories can be.
There is no real connection with the terms you mention to the actual data sources, I think even deniers know that, if they actually think about it, but they use the terms to try and demean the science as they have no real counter to the science, as has become painfully obvious over the years, which is why they have descended into this childish set of attacks against the science and individual scientists like Mann and Hansen and the constant references to Gore who in reality has played no real part in the science at all. Both Mann & Hansen have had a decade or more of this Mann is certainly showing the signs of such a sustained personal attack and Hansen has retired (to get away from it) but in reality these men never where the only source of the science, there are thousands of scientific papers on the many aspects of climate change from many different authors.
Take a serious look at the science and the number of countries, research groups from around the world, with different funding sources and the different fields of science that have all contributed to the total data set that makes up climate change and most denier theories fall apart, they know that, hence the need to pretend it's all 'greens' or 'liberals' or the equally ridiculous "Gore bribed them"
Scientists as a group have a long history of rejecting such things and disowning any scientist who has been found to have 'faked' his/her research, and the idea that a small group could fool the rest of the scientific community is equally ridiculous yet deniers have also tried this as a conspiracy theory.
The things you list have each come under attack from deniers for many and varying reasons, "ice cores, satellite data, trace gas detectors, thermometers, sediment samples, isotope readings, ocean pH data, etc" but look at the actual data and they really have nothing the claims come for the most part from denier blogs and websites and are without any real evidence based backing, they have 'in the real world' had no effect on the science at all. The nature of these attacks reveals quite a bit about the nature of denial and that has very little to do with either the truth or science.
All deniers the global warming want to discuss their religion and politics, they are in no way concerned with the science or even the basic understanding of the science
"They" even use number notation invented by the the Arabs, must be a Muslim conspiracy.
What is "alarmist" about paying attention to what the head of the world's leading Conservative Party said a quarter century ago? What is "liberal" about hundreds of Nobel Prize winning scientists supporting her? What is "liberal" about not being a stupid dupe of fossil fuel industry lies about science? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSrBO4_qPzo
