This is not the only data set that the warming trend is observable in.
[ In fact, some AGW skeptics don't deny a warming trend, but instead argue against human impact causing this warming trend (the A). ]
Nevertheless, here is what Real Climate says regarding the "hide the decline" bit (in more detail than their original post):
>>Declines” in the MXD record. This decline was hidden written up in Nature in 1998 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0...) where the authors suggested not using the post 1960 data. Their actual programs (in IDL script), unsurprisingly warn against using post 1960 data. Added: Note that the ‘hide the decline’ comment was made in 1999 – 10 years ago, and has no connection whatsoever to more recent instrumental records.
So, every climate record produced in recent years has no connection to this data. And there's lots of these.
Your evolution analogy is apt. Many (very smart) people would like to pretend this simply isn't happening or isn't possible.
[ In fact, some AGW skeptics don't deny a warming trend, but instead argue against human impact causing this warming trend (the A). ]
Nevertheless, here is what Real Climate says regarding the "hide the decline" bit (in more detail than their original post):
>>Declines” in the MXD record. This decline was hidden written up in Nature in 1998 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0...) where the authors suggested not using the post 1960 data. Their actual programs (in IDL script), unsurprisingly warn against using post 1960 data. Added: Note that the ‘hide the decline’ comment was made in 1999 – 10 years ago, and has no connection whatsoever to more recent instrumental records.
So, every climate record produced in recent years has no connection to this data. And there's lots of these.
Your evolution analogy is apt. Many (very smart) people would like to pretend this simply isn't happening or isn't possible.