So let's cut to the chase r_j. Who is suspected of fraud? You are the one who keeps using the word fraud.
Once again, you are caught in a lie. The only two times somebody has used the word fraud in this entire thread, is you, In that post, and in the linked one below.
Isn't it ironic that many of these "sceptics" who claim to be exposing some great fraud keep getting caught out lying.
It's why I consider your type of "questions" a strawman. You use the word fraud, then you claim "You are the one who keeps using the word fraud". Ironic. In fact, I used the word "fraud" very rarely.
You should either back that up, apologise or be seen as just another conspiracy theorist.
Actually, since you made a claim, it's on you to support your accusation with evidence. But since it will make your fallacy so evident, I took 5 minutes to grab every instance I used the word "fraud" in the entire thread.
In the previous version of this thread the word was used 22 times, in both instances where I used it, the context was clear,
As usual, you speak about the person, not the subject at hand. If you make a claim, it's on you to support it. Demanding everyone else prove you wrong is what woo woo frauds do. [
source]
and
That's the beauty of science. If it's actually science, you don't have to believe, you can see for yourself. You don't need somebody trying desperatly to convince you of something, just look at the science, unless it's some sort of fraud, a scam, the science should make things clear. [
source]
In the previous thread (9000 posts), the word "fraud" was used 80 times. I used it three times, all in regards to the same "paper" by ClimateCentral.
The one that showed warming used a fraud by picking the coldest point in over a hundred years to start the trend line.[
source]
The problem, or mistake, is using the very cold times to start the trend calculations. It's why some educated moron can claim the 80s were warmer than the 70s, the 90s were warmer than the 80s, etc etc, but when you look at the complete record you realize why that is fraud. It's what I pointed out in that propaganda paper about the drastic warming since the seventies.[
source]
Once again, if you make up something, like "why are most scientists lying', don't try and say I said such nonsense. That's dishonest.
By sides, I mean the non-scientists who constantly create propaganda, trying to influence people with fraud and dishonest presentations.[
source]
This is the power of computing, I can easily debunk your claim with evidence. Rather than trying to answer a question based on deception, I expose the the lie, and do it with evidence.
Feel free to prove I am wrong. (hint, I checked the AAH posts as well, but good luck)
Now what I did say, was "Since there is only one place to get the official data in question, the real issue would be what data are the Yahoos using when they make that woo woo claim? And how could they be so completely wrong?
It's even more obvious when you know a little Chicago history. The Yahoos
claim the data from the University in the 30's and early 40's was artificially hotter, and that the move to O'Hare
caused a cooling bias.
The factual story is the reverse, something they would have known if they actually researched Chicago weather history.
It's part of what makes it seem so fraudulent."
So rather than follow the Gish Gallop, I stick with facts. Like the clear and certain fact that the move from the University to Midway caused the temperature readings to go up, not down. It's why I know their claim is bogus.
The facts do not support them in any way.
And these attempts to sidetrack the issue (red herring) are a waste of time. Except I actually enjoyed looking at all my posts that used the word fraud.
And I discovered that "fraudulent" doesn't show up when searching for "fraud". For the record, I used the word fraudulent just once. Other people used it a lot more.
So you ready to discuss the theory now or what?
!
!
