I don't care how pretty your infographics are, I care how accurate they are. It is kind of hard to evaluate this when they don't explain where they're getting their data from.

a) Genetic fallacy, and not even a relevant one. My link is talking about proportionality of energy accumulation and how this relates to understanding so-called pauses that only happen in one area of the climate system. It's not repeating the alarmist claims about the apocalyptic fallout which your article is complaining about.

b) The point isn't just the raw data, but the concept of demonstrating that in order to say that a pause in the entire system has actually happened one needs to do more than show a pause in just one part of the system. The energy not being absorbed there could be going elsewhere.

c) You're still supplying a graph which only examines one tiny part of the climate system in terms of the amount of energy it is absorbing. It appears that this is part of the latest trend of people harping on about pauses in atmospheric and land temperatures when the oceans are warming at a faster pace than previously understood.

I know you're being sarcastic, but yeah that blog is kind of a mess when it comes to citing its sources. I couldn't make heads or tails of where they were getting their graphs from since they seem to just be mostly linking to other blogs, and what papers they do link to seem to not really agree with them. This is a problem I've noticed with a lot of skeptics: they love spamming graphs and charts almost completely devoid of context that would allow further analysis or even understanding them at all.

No, those two links I supplied don't just talk about accuracy of the satellite measurements, but also about Christy's methodology in terms of running the models as well as what observational data sets he chose.