re: #213 pdc_lgf

Do you mean fraud as in bad faith? How about considering the possibility that he honestly thinks he knows what he’s talking about?

Fraud as in he should have known better than to front as something he was not - which is to say an expert in the field.

He was here abominably insulting other posters who had put up real science - why Walter and Bagua was that OK? Oh, yes because it wasn’t me…

And then he simply linked known debunked denier sites than self respecting scientists don’t associate with - particularly ones from NASA, and made serious speeches about the scientific method being flawed in the context of AGW and in general.

OK

So let’s review,

1. He presented himself as someone with the authority to speak as one of NASA on the field.

2. He does not accept the basic scientific process of peer review. You have no idea what a red flag that is. He wasn’t going on about a horror story here or there or a hiccup where a bad paper got in or a good paper didn’t/ He was trashing the whole process to discredit the whole field.

3. He thinks Watts up with that is good science. I mean c’mon that’s like linking to the flat Earth society.

4. He left with some shot about temperature measurements. It was something that someone in the filed would know the answers too. I gave him two papers with 800 citations between them on the measurements and the errors - that also refute his false claim about getting reliable data.

The bottom line is, deniers always think they are right. However, they are wrong.