No, Frank, they're not. We're talking thousands of PhD scientists, actively researching these topics and publishing their results in peer reviewed journals. The idea that they are ALL fakes, phonies and frauds -- the idea that ANY significant number of them are frauds -- is simply unsupportable. It's not a realistic contention Frank. Not at all. Do you believe every priest in the Catholic church is a child molester? Do you believe every police officer in this country is a racist bigot? Do you believe every school teacher is incompetent? Do you believe every Muslim on the planet is a murderous terrorist? Do you believe no US soldier, sailor, airman or marine has ever done anything wrong? Do you believe every communist hates us and wants to destroy us?
The larger a generalization, relatively speaking, the more likely (ignoring a thousand other reasons) it is to be false. The idea that a group of extremely well educated people, spread all over the world, from every different nation on the planet, have all somehow participated in some vast conspiracy whereby they've all produced coherent data that all supports the same theory and has never been refuted or falsified... it simply ridiculous.
All the adjustment you talk about are justified in an effort to make the data more accurate. When the scientists who USE that data start griping about the adjustments, I'll listen. Till then it simply sounds exactly as if this is just the latest desperation move passed down to you by the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign. The organizations making those adjustment have been consistently explaining why they are doing what they are doing and you and yours have YET to produce a single case refuting those justifications. Just saying it - and that's all you people have ever done - doesn't make it so.
I'm sorry Frank, but I don't believe that to be the truth. I think you have read very, very little of it because you lack the scientific knowledge to make heads nor tails of most of it.
And you should stop making serious accusations for which you have no evidence outside your fevered imagination.
Just like Bernie Madoff, you need to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, the only crime that seems to have been committed around here would be the indecent assault implicit in your mental shortcomings attempting to deal with basic science.
I call bullshit on that claim three ways from Sunday. AR5 is not "made up" of papers. It does, however, cite 9,200 scientific publications. Are you claiming to have read them all Frank? Really? AR5 itself is over 2,000 pages and I'd be surprised to hear you've read a HUNDREDTH of it. Statements like that don't do much for our view of YOUR honesty Frank.
Those 9,200 reference publications were ALL subject to testing, all made their data public and all passed peer review. Is that what you get from Monckton? Watts? McIntyre?
Frank, when are you going to catch on here? READ THIS FRANK AND PAY ATTENTION. The recent paper, Karl et al 2015, "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus" is NOT based on the common comment that the oceans absorb over 90% of the Earth's excess heat. You have conflated two unrelated ideas: one old, one new. Karl et al's claim is that due to errors in the treatment of sea surface temperature measurements and poorly sampled Arctic surface readings, the global surface temperature was badly computed. The comment that the oceans absorb 90% of incoming heat is based on simple physics and has been an established observation for over a century.
