It depends on whether the scientists is honest about giving modelled data.
But, before you accuse anyone, you need to compare the data given by the scientist to the known empirical data. To accuse someone of fraud, you need evidence. And evidence =/= a video of a graph taped to a see-saw or a "hide the decline" email. You need evidence that would be accepted by reputable scientists, and perhaps even what could be published in Nature, depending on the reputation of the scientist and the importance of his/her work.
http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html
Why ask two questions on the very same thing? And if you're going to ask a second question, why don't you get more information? You're just repeating the accusations of someone that's completely out of his field and has published very few journal articles even in his OWN field. Do you have a clue about the statistical problems associated with either Wallace or Feely's analyses?
EDIT: You have no proof of any lying or misinformation except for the word of someone that has published nothing in the field of oceanography. Did you ever consider that maybe he doesn't know what he's talking about?
1) This is not a question
2) This is not considered empirical data in the way you described it
3) You intentionally worded your statement to suit your own beliefs
Are you still clinging to the Mike Wallace report, Kano? You just asked this question, just in a different way. Do you get paid for every deflection you are able to introduce.
In answer to your question, it is yet another attempt to deceive by any means possible. Not by the scientists, but by every entity that does not like what the Science tells us.
Are you trying to say that the atmospheric CO2 levels are not rising?
Are you trying to say that the oceans are not our planet's largest carbon sink?
Are you trying to say that CO2 absorption in our oceans will not lead to an acidification of the oceans?
What you really are trying to say is that you do not have even the most basic understanding of Science. You are trying to display this as the collapse of The Laws of Physics, The Laws of Chemistry and The Laws of Thermodynamics and all it really displays is a truer picture of the extent of your self induced ignorance.
It is just a difference of opinion, until you extort money from your unprovable opinion, then it becomes naked fraud.
According to Linny, the sun doesn't rise unless one of his communist leaning rags says so. Some scientist he is.
'NOAAGATE: HOW ‘OCEAN ACIDIFICATION’ COULD TURN OUT TO BE THE BIGGEST CON SINCE MICHAEL MANN’S HOCKEY STICK'
As far as i got; there has been around a dozen tests done proving Manns hockey stick graph correct since he published it and a grand total of 0 published proving it wrong,
It's called creative math, it's how most AGW related science is done.
neother. it is an interpretation from a questionable source.
Excuse me.
Are you going to use breibtbart to accuse someone else of "lying, cheating, fraud, or what?"
Really?
denier blogs are deceptive.
Is it lying, cheating, fraud, or what?
