Anyone with a minimal background in statistics and research would look at this stuff and dismiss it out of hand. The methodology is beyond embarrassing, it’s out and out fraud.
If I had submitted something like this to any of my research classes in college in the early 70s I would have been chewed out and failed.
Anyone with a minimal background in statistics and research would look at this stuff and dismiss it out of hand. The methodology is beyond embarrassing, it’s out and out fraud.
~~~
With climate change, other than the obscure research articles published scientific journals, anything you read is not real research or statistics. It’s all written for effect.
The climate has never been static. Ever. There are micro-cycles and macro-cycles, a millions of vectors of influence, most of which influence each other to varying degrees as well the ‘climate’ as a whole, and you could get buried infinitely in the minutia of all the feedback loops, counteracting phenomena, and ecological complexities.
What doesn’t change is, no matter what short term measurable phenomenon you can cite, it will always be attributed subjectively as a negative symptom of ‘climate change’.