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.
