Most global warming 'skeptics' seem to have little to no scientific training, so I tend to expect better arguments from those who do. But the self-proclaimed geologists and chemists on this site never fail to disappoint me.
In a recent question, the self-proclaimed chemist went off on a semi-coherent rant which seems full of misinformation.
"The strongest evidence is of course the evidence which is most manipulated or the surface temperature data. It is nothing short of fraud the way they present that manipulated data. You get activists making wild and completely bogus claims that this is the warmest March, January or whatever..." [are the scientists at UAH frauds for 'manipulating the data' to show January and March 2010 as the hottest January and March on record?]
"They are comparing manipulated data from selected stations and comparing that to far more station data in the past. The data from the past is also averaged differently. It is like comparing apples to oranges but when it comes to propaganda, any bogus claim is justified in their eyes. It is about religions and leftist politics first and reality only gets in the way. They eliminated all but one site in the arctic for example. They kept one site that was exceptionally warm to average out the rest. They included data from their last idiotic claim where Finland was listed as 80 degrees warmer than it was. That alone shifted the temperature something like 2 percent. They would never err on the side of it being cooler but they don't even correct obvious errors like that. Their weather monitoring stations are pathetic. The vast majority are affect by urban heat island effects and they dramatically minimize that effect. Sometimes they even change adjust the urban heat effect the wrong direction. They manipulate the data to reduce old reading and maximize recent ones and even with all their bogus data, they don't even get a degree in a century. It is still cooler than it was a thousand years ago in spite of their fraudulent efforts by anti-science kook activists like Mann, Hansen, Jones and a host of others that tried to cook the books.
The actual evidence in the real world is exceptional strong that significant climate sensitivity to CO2 is just a fantasy."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkSucKiN6dO7rkQuKgmqBfvty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20100420123307AAphwlh&show=7#profile-info-WiR1IEQnaa
Is there a shred of evidence to support any of the claims in this self-proclaimed chemist's rant? Shouldn't a supposed scientist provide such evidence before calling thousands of climate scientists frauds?
If such a link exists, perhaps you should provide it, Ottawa. Otherwise you're really no less dishonest. In fact it's probably more dishonest to claim evidence exists when it doesn't than to simply make an unsubstantiated lie.
coldfuse - yes, it is. By the way, I suggest you re-read the linked article, because EM Smith is not who you think he is. Or better yet, just throw the thing in the trash where it belongs.
bz - you could have just said no. Repeating the same bunch of garbage with one blog link doesn't make it any less wrong.
In a recent question, the self-proclaimed chemist went off on a semi-coherent rant which seems full of misinformation.
"The strongest evidence is of course the evidence which is most manipulated or the surface temperature data. It is nothing short of fraud the way they present that manipulated data. You get activists making wild and completely bogus claims that this is the warmest March, January or whatever..." [are the scientists at UAH frauds for 'manipulating the data' to show January and March 2010 as the hottest January and March on record?]
"They are comparing manipulated data from selected stations and comparing that to far more station data in the past. The data from the past is also averaged differently. It is like comparing apples to oranges but when it comes to propaganda, any bogus claim is justified in their eyes. It is about religions and leftist politics first and reality only gets in the way. They eliminated all but one site in the arctic for example. They kept one site that was exceptionally warm to average out the rest. They included data from their last idiotic claim where Finland was listed as 80 degrees warmer than it was. That alone shifted the temperature something like 2 percent. They would never err on the side of it being cooler but they don't even correct obvious errors like that. Their weather monitoring stations are pathetic. The vast majority are affect by urban heat island effects and they dramatically minimize that effect. Sometimes they even change adjust the urban heat effect the wrong direction. They manipulate the data to reduce old reading and maximize recent ones and even with all their bogus data, they don't even get a degree in a century. It is still cooler than it was a thousand years ago in spite of their fraudulent efforts by anti-science kook activists like Mann, Hansen, Jones and a host of others that tried to cook the books.
The actual evidence in the real world is exceptional strong that significant climate sensitivity to CO2 is just a fantasy."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkSucKiN6dO7rkQuKgmqBfvty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20100420123307AAphwlh&show=7#profile-info-WiR1IEQnaa
Is there a shred of evidence to support any of the claims in this self-proclaimed chemist's rant? Shouldn't a supposed scientist provide such evidence before calling thousands of climate scientists frauds?
If such a link exists, perhaps you should provide it, Ottawa. Otherwise you're really no less dishonest. In fact it's probably more dishonest to claim evidence exists when it doesn't than to simply make an unsubstantiated lie.
coldfuse - yes, it is. By the way, I suggest you re-read the linked article, because EM Smith is not who you think he is. Or better yet, just throw the thing in the trash where it belongs.
bz - you could have just said no. Repeating the same bunch of garbage with one blog link doesn't make it any less wrong.