CO2 smashing extreme weather records

Originally posted by UniTrader: ↑

Mjp2, I have no understanding of your credentials in this. So even assuming you are well-meaning, I think you are been hoodwinked and that this a game of he says she says. I chased down your reference with one of my own.We don’t like it, but we just have to beg to differ.
My understanding is focussed on my area of expertise. I have a masters in Econometrics - statistical modelling if you like. It is well understood that any good sensible modelling comes down to its data (but really there is actually a lot more to it).Of course in time-varying analysis the dataset can change at a drop of a hat, much the same as floods thought to occur once in 100 years can with time be resolved to be more regular.The difference here is I am focussed upon poor models because the data is troubled.If the models are poor then I ask how can they confirm the AGW hypothesis?

Notwithstanding the IPCC's change of heart, the AGW hypothesis is now a political football which creates its own bias and carries political consequences over time. But the fundamental flaw in the AGW hypothesis research is the contentious climate modelling and the adjustment down over time of what temperature rise follows increasing Carbon Dioxide levels.There are of course just too many avenues for the AGW modelling to fall down and this modelling has been conflicted since the 1980's. But, if you are a scientist close to the centre of the AGW hypothesis regime, the most troubling thing is the awkward changes to the data and of course all that follows.
Datasets are manipulated the world over with Meteorology decisions to use measurements in city hotspots (e.g. carparks) and not in rural areas; to use the USA as a proxy for world temperatures when some islands might provide a far more untouched site for temperature records over time. Datasets have been sliced and diced so that the scientific analysis cannot be an understanding of the true climate or even more importantly, deliver meaningful conclusions. Conclusions at the heart of this hypothesis cannot be from contentious research, hence getting published in top level journals is always showcasing that you conform to the AGW hypothesis. Clearly in this forum, posters misunderstand the thinking behind contentious research but the real shame is that such thoughts are pronounced in scientific circles.
Another way to look at this is to see that the modelling is a failure because the data is conditional. The AGW hypothesis has failed not because of the outcome of testing its hypothesis but because it’s testing method is poor.I know that the more time that passes the more data that will be collected, but this needs to be quality data. And maybe this is the narrative of why the IPCC changed its mind and lowered its sights across the 100 years horizon. So changes in climate have nothing to do with increasing Carbon Dioxide and the major journals are yet to show why.

Expand

You make a lot of assertions there, Unitrader, and if you look objectively at what you wrote, you support those assertions with no evidence other than an appeal to your own authority.

And you exhibit both false statement and inconsistent argument. Plus apparent emotive bias. So I suggest you'd not get this particular post I reply to past any peer review.

False and inconsistent argument?

Contrary to your claim, measurements of urban environments are in fact corrected for urban heat island effect by reference to nearby rural sites. And there is much analysis and papers on the techniques used and the identified impact of urban heat island effect. Your assertion is simply back to front.

And your subsequent argument that data is being "sliced and diced" (you claim, hence negating the validity of that data), is also a false and emotively presented statement. So, for example, you can't on the one hand (falsely) claim that urban heat island effect is not corrected for and then complain about the corrections made. There is the inconsistent argument. And you make no cogent argument against the validity of that urban heat island effect and other adjustments made to correct the data.

I think there is valid need to assess the techniques used to make data corrections; for urban heat island effect, for instrument and site changes, for changes in measurement approach for sea based measurement, for satellite orbital decay; and for many other impacts. But those processes are well documented in the science and your arguments do not provide any evidence or argument against the techniques used.

People bring mistaken argument to these forums with unrecognised bias. I think I've just pointed to you doing just that.

I don't rely on my own "credentials" as you put it. I reference and communicate what is evidenced by the science. It's fine to argue any flaw in the science, but not by simply saying your own credentials justify an opinion.