There is a new paper out which says:
These ratios are small (less than 1) on the 10-year timescale, increasing to more than 3.9 for 32-year trends. This large change in S/N is primarily due to a decrease in the amplitude of internally generated variability with increasing trend length.
I would like to question this assertion, because an assertion without any backing is no more valid than anybody’s view. But the paper in question is behind a paywall. Now as so much climate “science” is a con designed to bleed the public dry, the last thing I want to do is to feed the con and go and pay from their drivel.
So, should such work ever be considered as part of the debate? My answer is no, particularly when the work is paid from the public purse and is addressing an issue of public concern (or none concern)
With tongue firmly in cheek, where it’s been for most of my life apart from the odd high spot, I have to register my disagreement SS.
A paywall may be a barrier but armed with a buoyant debit or valid credit card it is not an unsurmountable obstacle.
The Faith is accessible with an easy and affordable e-Tithe. Compare this with the tribulations of your typical early 16th Century Sceptic.
Faced with no online oportunities to purchase the Tyndale Bible, the distinct possibility of pre-death cremation and the slog of having to learn your native written language I have to strongly conjecture that questioning consensus dogma is much easier today than hitherto!
All I need to question climate dogma today is a proxy server for anonymity, six numbers up on the Lottery, a paid-up Energy partner and the cheques from Big-Oil and Coal.
Gawd bless the 21st Century and His prophet Jones the Kevin Goresworthy Mann (PBUH)
If “research” done with our money is behind a paywall that certainly mells fishy. I can see circumstances where such research might go that way but the onus would be on those using it to provide details and a good reason.
Paywalls for taxpayer funded research, public money to fund “Green” anything, etc., etc…. the solution is very simple. Taxpayers who are sick and tired of paying through the nose for the utter stupidity and waste of their elected representatives need to elect new and more responsible and representative representatives. The best way to avoid default, decline, deceit, and a damn bloody revolution is to take a little intelligent interest in the dimwits on the ballot. Of course, when fools elect fools to represent them they have no claims whatsoever to redress except revolution or civil war. Bad stuff! Very bad indeed.