zlacker

You've provided links to things the vast bulk of people in earth sciences, particularly climatic related earth and atmospherics are already well aware of.

Yet they, in near majority, still stand behind the broad predictions of future climate change - even being aware of the work of Smale and Lorenz .. perhaps it's that 40+ year old understanding of stability, robustness, and the Dzhanibekov effect in which the broad arc of motion is entirely predictable despite wobbles on a minor axis or two.

Normalisation and may other adjustments to data sets are stock in trade operations across all the observational sciences- geophysical mineral exploration, radiometric surveying, radio astronomy, distributed signal aquisition, etc. etc. etc. You'll note for example that NASA et al are out in front about doing such things.

Predictions of trains headed for derailment based on speed, mass, and topography are not refuted by an inability to predict where the centrepiece vase in the dining car comes to rest.

>>defros+(OP)
Problem is that speed is unknown variable that change with our knowledge. Yet, we make conclusions, over 50 years, that was and still are false.

From history we know, how terrified population is easier to manipulate by those who offer easy solutions.

>>t0bia_+021
You're not making a STEM case that the AGW argument is flawed.

The physics is sound. The grasp of physics many dissenters have is not.