"WOW, you sure make NOAA look like a bunch of idiots. Management is swayed by pretty colors, and this is your source for AGW?"

What do you mean "my source for AGW"? Karl et al. 2015? 

"This is a hit piece, pure and simple. Lots of belittling and a persuasive argument that nothing Bates said should be listened to."

Umm Richard, Bates lied. He claimed the data wasn't archived then retracted that claim when it was pointed out they put all of this up on NOAA’s FTP site in early June 2015, at the time that the Karl et al paper was published.

The other big lie in David Rose's piece that the buoy and ship data had been adjusted? Ya that's because they are on two different baselines! Richard by definition thats a cherry pick! The trend is the same no matter what year you start from! 

I want you to think critically for a second and identify where in the Karl et al. paper you think there is an issue. Identify it please.