> The driving mechanic behind climate change theories is that we are changing the chemistry of the atmosphere, which is making the climate unstable.
This is a strange characterization of the increase in CO2 and resultant heat retention. It's not itself "unstable".
> If you just look at the statistics through the lens of data science, it's easy to write off effects as "not enough data", but this is a simplistic view,
Selecting only a specific set of events in specific areas is, by definition, cherry picking data.
> Selecting only a specific set of events in specific areas is, by definition, cherry picking data.
You used the same phrase elsewhere in the thread. I am not sure if we agree on what "cherry picking" really means. There is a difference between isolating relevant variables and cherry picking data. For example, if you wanted to track the long term trend of lion weight in Africa, you wouldn't also include in your dataset the weights of monkeys in South America. That'd just add irrelevant noise because, even though they are measurements of animal weight, they are not what we are studying. It absolutely would not be "cherry picking" to exclude monkeys from your sample. Real cherry picking would be things like excluding particular years of measurements or finding other reasons to exclude data that goes against a trend you are looking for.
> This is a strange characterization of the increase in CO2 and resultant heat retention. It's not itself "unstable".
I'm not sure how you got this from what I wrote. I specifically said "changing the chemistry of the atmosphere", which is not a strange characterization of an "increase of CO2" in the atmosphere, it is word for word a correct description of that action. I have no idea what you mean by "It's not itself "unstable", especially in the context. If you mean that changing the chemical makeup of the atmosphere doesn't make climate patterns unstable, then you're just wrong.
> Selecting only a specific set of events in specific areas is, by definition, cherry picking data.
This also literally has nothing to do with what I said. Are you some kind of weird GPT bot or something? I'd assume you accidentally wrote back to the wrong comment, but you quoted me... If you'd go ahead and reread my post, and not skip the big words, you'll see that I was trying to convey that because we have such limited data, and it's data from a system that's ridiculously large and dynamic compared to the data, any purely statistical analysis is going to be absolute garbage. Hence, you also need to use logical reasoning about cause and effect, what types of chemical shifts in the atmosphere will cause what types of outcomes.
But really, you need to stay a little more on task if you'd like to discuss and debate. Just confusing at this point, and I'm still not sure if you're trolling or a bot or just flailing.
This is a strange characterization of the increase in CO2 and resultant heat retention. It's not itself "unstable".
> If you just look at the statistics through the lens of data science, it's easy to write off effects as "not enough data", but this is a simplistic view,
Selecting only a specific set of events in specific areas is, by definition, cherry picking data.