Climate4You Update

Is that right Bazza?
Zero relevance?
To what in particular?
Projective modelling?....or is it now 'statistical inference' ?
I thought you wanted an explanation (or the meaning) of my comment about 'cherry picking' being bit of a furphy when we discuss projective modelling? (summarised version of original comment)
I admit I was a bit unclear about what you asked....maybe you might try to ask questions in a less obtuse manner and minus the veiled, smarmy, personal insults?
BTW...I don't know why you got moderated as I didn't see the comment....but I can easily guess on the evidence of past performance.
But, nonetheless, as a further comment on your comments.
(IMHO) as always....
It doesn't matter whether it's to do with budgets or climate or weather or education or health or mining or insurance or hydrology or whatever else you care to name .....it's still essentially a 'what if' exercise and it does exclude variability (or uncertainty as used by you) of other changes in other inputs as it examines the 'what if' proposition or looks for a particular 'signal'.
Are you now claiming that AGW projective modelling is NOT a 'what if' exercise that excludes uncertainties?
You see Bazza....in principle I don't have a problem with that....my very, very strong objection is the highly inappropriate political hijacking of this work....including the claims that it is 'science', that it is 'settled' and that it is a primary policy making tool that we should just 'trust' because it is all about 'higher level principles' or 'the greatest moral challenge of out time' or ' to protect future generations' or 'to mitigate the fact that climate changes' or to protect us from 'immiment catastrophic risk' or 'to protect the environment' or to stop people getting cranky in traffic jams or to manage bush fire risk or the risk of houses falling into the ocean next century sometime or etc etc etc....
That's why I have no problem in principle with the Climate4You work or the Joel Norris work that Luke linked or Jen and Abbot's paper and numerous others.
They're all fine if they clearly state the context and have a clearly stated methodolgy....even the majority of the AGW modelling that I have seen is fine as a statistical exercise. (and I realise that there is an exponential increase of such work....mainly because of aforementioned objection and one single person has little hope of reading a significant % of that!)
But...I'm confident this comment is further proof of some type of personality fault on my part Bazza and that I'm doomed in some manner that I either simply don't understand or that I don't care enough about.

Bazza,
I am not sure I have interpreted your question correctly or even if there is any point in my attempt to answer it.....but here goes.
I also qualified, very importantly:
That is paricularly true if we are trying to extrapolate trends and patterns in such an uncooperative beast that we call weather and/or climate.
IMHO Bazza,
AND as an over riding qualifier I accept absolutely that what some would call 'both sides' have continually accused the other of 'cherrypicking'....I actually agree that cherrypicking occurs (on both sides) but that in and of itself, it is NOT a valid complaint.
Statistical analysis, especially projective work, is primarily an attempt to look for trends and patterns (or I guess in the work we're discussing the terminology is better known as a 'signal') and use these calculations as a 'tool' to help us understand the world around us and also an attempt to help us make informed decisions about the benefits/disadvantages of 'adjusting' any inputs.
What we attempt to do is model or extrapolate different 'assumptions' about various inputs that I guess can be (very) simply described as .....if everything else remains 'equal' or 'basically unchanged', what is the likely influence on the whole of a change in factor X?
In economic projective modelling this can be a very useful exercise.
It is also very useful in modelling 'outcomes' in numerous other professions....including climate science of course.
In my personal business (Agriculture) we can easily see the advantages of using such a tool.
We can factor in a 'range' of prices for our various commodities....a 'range' of different water allocations in relation to our planting windows.....a range of weather forecasts and rainfall forecasts....a range of varying prices in our input costs....and that can become ever more intricate and complicated and it has also become even 'higher powered' with new technologies and programming.
All we then have to do is change one of those 'inputs' in those models to examine how that particular change could affect the whole picture.
A simple example in my business would be to change the market price of wheat.
If nothing else changes, that particular change either up or down will have a demonstrable effect on the whole business model.
However....that one particular answer is 'assuming' that other equally important or even more significant variables like yield, the price of fertiliser/fuel, water availability, summer rainfall events, R&M costs, the market prices of the many other commodities we produce, interest rates, water quality etc etc etc etc ad infinitum ....will remain basically unchanged.
That's why I think the 'cherrypicking' argument....no matter what 'side' or what our 'belief' may be... is really a bit of a furphy.
If we're trying to focus on the significance of one 'input' then of course that input is the one we 'adjust' in the modelling.
That can also be described as 'cherrypicking'.
The rest of my POV about the AGW debate is based more on the fact that this type of work is called 'science' and that it is 'settled' and that it can be used effectively as a primary decision making tool.
I do not believe that to be the case and I have seen no evidence in the form of 'measureable outcomes or results' that would cause me to re evaluate.
To me....that particular mindset/standpoint and the huge media/political argument it has created.... is part of the problem rather than part of of any practical solution.

And further Luke,
I was very, very careful to point out that I do NOT object to Norris' work.
I objected strongly to the way YOU chose to use it.
He was careful to point out his terms of reference and his methods.
There is nothing in there that DISPROVES what Toby pointed out.