You have previously claimed that only the most peer reviewed studies are worthy of note

Peer review has it's flaws. But it the best system we have.

If you're trying to get obvious bullshit past the public, say young earth creationism, flat earth, iridology or climate change denial, you're going to need to rely on sources that are not peer reviewed, because although you may be able to couch your pseudoscience in a veneer of science sounding terms and science sounding approaches, you're not going to fool anyone in the field for 30 seconds.

Then this isn't science. Science is the study of things, not the writing of "things people claim to know is real".

It absolutely is. Science often reaches a consensus amongst people who study a particular field. For instance the world isn't flat, gravitation is a curved timespace phenomenon and CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And then they still go one and study further into new unknowns. They've merely established the basic facts ... which almost invariably opens up the opportuning for more study: As the island of the known grows, so does the shoreline of the unknown.

Forecasting.

Not generally, no. The Hadley centre use the same model for forecasting as climate modelling, but they're the only ones.

Try it, open PowerBI, run some numbers, do some logistical regression, bit of Holt-Winters exponential smoothing, do some t.tests, get your p-values, adjust your error variance.

Has someone set up a powerbi interface to a weather model ... or a GCM? Do you have a link?

Climate models are just forecasts, and they are inherently unreliable.

No. They're not weather forecasts. If you inquire what days will have how much wind or rain, or what temperatures will be where, they will be unreliable and sensitively dependent on the model initialization.

But for climate variables such as global mean surface temperature, they have been reliable for 40 years. As the top post shows.

The reason for this should be clear, if you try to understand: To get the global mean surface temperature correct you need to get the energy flows correct only. Because conservation of energy is a constraint. So if you know how much energy the earth is taking in more than radiating out at the top of the atmosphere, which is a largely a function of the greenhouse effect and the earth's albedo, all you need to model correctly is how fast that energy is propagating into the oceans (and to a far lesser extent the crust). And you will get the increase in the global mean surface temperature correct.

So you don't believe in volcanoes, natural disasters or the fa t they are a bigger danger to your scary co2?

What?

I certainly believe in volcanoes and natural disasters.

What I said was letting you know if all the volcanoes erupt or the sky fall has no relevance to the accuracy the climate models have shown.

Not irrelevant, you only speak of global warming when discussing climate change. Ice age is more likely and more dangerous to our species.

There's no risk of a coming glaciation, hence irrelevant.

Your other claim is unlikely. The last glaciation finished 10,000 years ago. Every existent ecosystem and practically every existent species survived through it, including ours. The current climate has not been this warm for millions of years, so nothing has had to live through this warming. And there is where you find risks.

I open my eyes and see people subjected to propaganda and lies every day,

You realise that you've argued in the one comment above that

• The warming isn't happening, because science is wrong.
  
• The warming is good, because ice ages are bad.
• Volcanoes and natural disasters. You don't saying anything about them. But you raise them as if it's an argument.

You realise that those first two points are contradictions?

You haven't even got a coherent position. You're merely repeating everything in the denialosphere, no matter how inconsistent, like a shotgun using bullshit for ammunition.

So it's kind of laughable that you think the scientific one is "propaganda"

You're a puppet.

Oh, the irony.