If the study does not fit the narrative, it must be dismissed.
“It is not published in a climate journal — this is a common avenue taken by ‘climate sceptics’ in order to avoid peer review by real experts in the field.”
The “real experts” have been caught committing scientific fraud so many times with regard to this subject that little, if anything, they produce can be believed. Basic science and “accurate” history supports almost none of what the climate change crowd pushes. It’s the greatest scam in recorded history, and on a global scale.
This is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
"It is not published in a climate journal -- this is a common avenue taken by 'climate sceptics' in order to avoid peer review by real experts in the field."
This is also appeal to authority, and it neglects to mention the possibility that climate journals might have a policy of outright rejecting skeptical papers irrespective of their scientific merit, forcing such papers to seek publication elsewhere.
"They simply ignore studies that don't fit their narrative and have come to the opposite conclusion."
[Citation needed]
“Scientists”
Grant whores, more like.
Faulty = suggests that massive Global Warming can’t be proven.
They simply ignore studies that don’t fit their narrative Ah irony lost on them.
Who would that be?
They aren’t even subtle about their insistence on “the narrative”.
You must adhere to the science gravy train.
Consensus through censorship.
Sorry, those folks were NOT scientists.
They are folks who have no income source sans corrupt government funding.
Those of us practicing real science have to have models that actually work that help produce systems that actually function.
Thus far, I’ve seen a whole lot of crap out there...which would result in a strong D+ or C- from a competent professor.
“Climate scientists” are not scientists, they are political activists masquerading as “scientists.”
This appears to be the dreaded paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357805134_A_critical_assessment_of_extreme_events_trends_in_times_of_global_warming
I posted this in an earlier thread about this article:
Report finds ‘no evidence’ of a climate emergency“
Article mentioned in the report (a good read):
“ A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02243-9
“It is not published in a climate journal…”
This is true. It was published in a physics journal, The European Physical Journal - Plus (EPJ Plus).
https://www.springer.com/journal/13360
Latest articles include:
Release criteria and exposure of caregivers and public after discharge of patients undergoing 131I-MIBG, 131I-NaI and 177Lu-DOTATATE therapies
Wormhole in f(Q) gravity
Nonlinear dynamics of a liquid film flow over a solid substrate in the presence of external shear stress and electric field
Refractive index and temperature sensor based on dual-D-shapes photonic crystal fiber surface plasmon resonance
Investigation of the fundamental working mechanism for high-performance Sb2(S1−xSex)3 solar cells
“All four of the experts consulted by AFP suggested that the study should never have been published in the first place, and two of them called for it to be withdrawn.”
ALL “four (4) of the experts ...” “... and two of them called for it to be withdrawn.”
I’m sooooo impressed. NOT!
Compiling data on the frequencies of these types of storms seems like it should be pretty straight forward along with plotting data points in frequency over time.
Determining cause is impossible (butterfly effect?) except for the best scientific minds who are skilled at manipulating data and variables until it “proves” their theory and keeps the big $$$ rolling in.