Those are two unrelated things. i.e. paper making claims about the influence of climate on storms can be complete nonsense even if the basic physics is correct. I call this kind of lazy thinking the 'bait and switch'. i.e. people take something that is well supported by science and then use it to claim that unrelated claim must also be true. It is nonsense. Science does not work that way. Each claim is evaluated on its own merits.
You seem to be disqualifying the idea that a physical effect can be verified using statistical analysis. There is no reason to do so. The counter claims against it can be part of the discussion as with your non-analagous example of storms. This appears to be a simpler relation than weather overall. To say it's unrelated is basically a subversion of the discussion that would happen in peer review.
"CO2 greenhouse effect does occur in the laboratory but you can't use that to examine the macro effect of CO2 in the atmosphere because... they are unrelated" Really ? Can we at least start with the laboratory effect and use that to examine the correlation of CO2 in atmosphere with temperature ? I guess not ?
You can't prove a statistical analysis is false unless you can do experimental replication. All you can do in climate science is criticize the methods which is a purely subjective exercise. That is why it is so easy for alarmist scientists to dismiss skeptical papers. There is always some quibble that they can use as an excuse to declare it "debunked". The fact that their own papers have similar issues is shamelessly ignored.
No you can't "prove" it but that is immaterial. There is no laboratory that mimics our atmosphere 100% and so you can effectively use this maxim to deny any action on climate change.
You miss the point. Someone claimed a skeptical paper was wrong because it did "curve fitting" but the same criticism applies to almost every paper produced by alarmists like Michael Mann but his papers are taken seriously. The only difference is Mann supports the alarmists narrative so his crappy statistical methods are ignored. It is a painfully obvious double standard.
"Curve fitting" sounds a generic term for qualitative smoothing and - yes - some of that is valid and some isn't. It's like discounting error - you can do it correctly or incorrectly and it's subject to discussion. Unless we have the specific example it's hard to say and no I don't want it. I already have an assignment.
We don't know what goes on behind the scenes but scientists like Judith Curry and Robert Pielke have talked about the abuse they received from colleagues for talking a less alarmist approach
But wait. You seem to be saying that scientists are abused BECAUSE they disagree with the consensus right ? If I find some scientists that disagree but are also respected doesn't that disprove your assumption here ?
The problem is the chill in the current environment that could lead to paths of research being dropped as soon as the academic realizes it would be impossible to get it through the alarmists who are the gatekeepers at many journals.
Or... nobody wants to fund something that doesn't have much science behind it - only politics. There were some strong alternatives that didn't stand up to peer review.
You yourself accept the science so why are you expecting people to be publishing papers that dispute it ? It's a paradox.
Why should alarmist papers be taken anymore seriously if these flaws were show stoppers?
I would put to you: if someone found a correlation between temperature and some other factor (say sunspots) then that would definitely be accepted even though the same "flawed" (your word) method was used.
the extremely bad alarmist papers which are treated as gospel because they support the narrative. I would he happy if people would learn to understand the limitations of the methods available and the kind of certainties claimed are not legitimate.
Almost none of the denialist chatter I read from "the" public (ie. the popular fora discussing climate change) mention statistical analysis as being a flawed way to look at physical science. Instead, I am more likely to read that George Soros is funding lying scientists for his world domination scheme.
You agree with the science, but you hate socialists. Most of the vocal denialists are garbage-minded but also hate socialists. You have to pick a team and unfortunately for you it's not the one you like.
I would prefer you limit your response to this post to something shorter if you can as I spent 20 minutes writing this, which is 100% of my posting time for today. I would rather spend time looking at the critics of climate change and how they were received, thanks.