Re: This again?
"So basically, the Register's position on this topic is that the data PROVES there is no warming; unless it doesn't, in which case the data PROVES the scientists are fudging the numbers? (To what end is never quite explained)."
Proof in science is a tricky thing. In climate science, it can be a bit easier because their standard of proof is perhaps more lax than in traditional disciplines. So there's a theory that there is a relationship between CO2 and temperature. What that relationship is is uncertain. So we have climate models producing a range of predictions showing that as CO2 increases, so should temperatures. Thus we got the calls for action to prevent xC warming by <whenever> and the UN wanting $100bn a year to fight the War on Warmth.
So along came The Pause. Observations showed warming wasn't increasing despite record amounts of CO2. Whilst this was a short Pause, it could be shrugged off. It's a non-linear system and short pauses are expected. So climate scientists said it didn't falsify the models unless The Pause exceeded X years, with X increasing in proportion with the length of The Pause. Various attempts were made to explain The Pause with it being due to aerosols, volcanic activity or the missing heat somehow diving deep into the oceans in some undectable fashion.
But the longer The Pause continued, the harder it is to explain the divergence between simulated and observed reality. Especially with COP coming up and possibly a last chance to get developed countries to sign up to giving the UN $100bn a year. So with much fanfare, we get this new paper launched with a blaze of publicity that pretends The Pause just doesn't exist.
Skeptics naturally are.. skeptical.