CO2 smashing extreme weather records

Originally posted by nippy: ↑

All,

Twice now when I have given a breakdown of what is wrong with "climate science" the protagonists have stopped posting on a lively thread all together. One can only assume they don't want people to see the comments tearing it apart. So here it is again on a relevant thread from the Montana Glacier thread :-

Bellcurve,

The 1970s claim that we were entering an ice age - and your claim we would continue to get hotter as the science was settled.

I agree both instances lack scientific credibility and here is why :-

1) no other branch of science allows changing of the data
2) changing of the data is simply fraud

3) no University in the entire world teaches that it is okay to change the data - why? refer to point 2)

4) Once you allow changing of the data you introduce
a) conscious bias ( eg BOM human decision to not allow recordings under 10 degrees ), ignoring higher 1896 data and choosing a later data point to claim RECORD TEMPERATURES
b) unconscious bias - eg early ignorance of the fact that continuous data recording would have to result in slightly higher temperature data compared to readings done every few hours or hourly, same for urban heating effects, same for placement of data sites or more data sites.

5) Regardless of how the data is taken and regardless of bias the data has error confidence limits. Stats 101 teaches you that you cannot claim a valid statistical trend if the trend lies wholly within the error margins of that data - the tiny increases in temperatures claimed fail this basic first year level test. In fact there is no valid rise, or fall, to be claimed in any valid scientific basis given the data collection methods error margins and trend size claimed.

6) The models have historically got the claimed trends wrong eg ice age total reversal to fry claim. The embarrassing removal of signs claiming Glacier X will be totally gone by 2020 ( this is farcical but yet you want to hide this rather than wear it for all to see )

7) The farce of wanting billions spent by govts and individuals because of models that have been shown to simply not work - the ''science'' is not repeatable as it did not work in the first place - accordingly it fails the valid science test on both grounds. Welcome Peter Ridd!

8) Attempting to block discussions in the media ( ie The Conversation ) or worse at Universities and even to sack dissenting voices also fails the valid science test.

Bellcurve what we are seeing are human failings rather than valid science.

Expand

Do you know how geologists work?

How their data is manipulated to get a “result”?