Sorry, you just don’t know what you’re talking about, so you are provably a denier.
I don’t expect you to change your mind, as I know it’s psychologically nearly impossible (the people use all they power to rationalize their decisions that they made before they assert the valid data, and then they typically remind blind to the facts).
I’ll just provide the link for those who just wonder what the heck you’re talking about when you claim about ocean data:
In short, claiming that they are doing it wrong can be accepted only by somebody who understand what’s going on, and I’m sure you don’t. The corrections performed are valid science:
“When scientists mistrust their data, they do they same thing you do when you think your watch is off: they check another clock.”
“the new Argo data were too cold, and the older XBT data were too warm, and together, they made it seem like the ocean had cooled”
“A scientist could hardly be expected to be happy about finding a mistake in his work after he published it. But if you have to watch your research go down in flames, it may help to regard it as an offering on the sacrificial fire of scientific progress. In the case of “ocean cooling,” Willis has plenty of reasons to consider the sacrifice worth it.”
It’s just the science learning from the mistakes, nothing bogus.
For you to claim the later you’d have to give the valid scientific arguments and not to repeat something you’ve heard somewhere. And I’m sure you can’t do that, otherwise you’d be recognized by all the scientists of the world (by the 97% not the 3% of the deniers that nobody takes serious except for the politicians who don’t understand sicenece, but understand politics)! Sorry.