Let's try another analogy. Alice and Bob are degenerate gamblers who bet on a coin flip together exactly once per day. Alice always selects heads and Bob always selects tails. They've been playing for ten years.
Claire is friends with Bob, and she suspects that Alice has been cheating for the last 100 days with an unfair coin that flips heads more often than it should. She tells Bob, and Bob responds that he's certain Alice isn't cheating. Sure, the coin came up heads 95 of the previous 100 days, but that's just variance!
Can Claire prove to Bob that Alice is probably cheating? Does she need to flip a separate coin and compare notes?
This is an attempt at a false equivalence. You can name all possible outcomes of a coin, you can not name all possible outcomes of a climate. See chaos theory for more on that regard.
The logic is precisely the same whether we're talking about coins or climates.
Tweak the analogy. Imagine that Alice and Bob use a random number generator instead of a coin. Let's say it generates a random decimal number between 0 and 1. There are infinite end states, and they're completely unpredictable from the initial conditions. If Alice cheats and tweaks the number generator to generate her numbers 90% of the time, Bob can detect that the generator is biased, analytically, by recording the proportions of the end states and comparing that to the likelihood of those proportions being truly random. Bob can then quantify exactly how certain or uncertain he is that the number generator is biased.
Or go with the original. The final position of a coin spinning through air is chaotic (
or at least approximately so). I can still use probability and statistics to detect an unfair coin by recording and analyzing the proportions of its outcomes. There are many more possible 'outcomes' for a climate than for a coin, but I can still record and analyze their proportions.
The motion of a pinball in a pinball machine is chaotic. One could still detect a tilted machine by recording and analyzing a sufficient number of end states of the pinball.
All of that said, I'm not sure why you think the climate is a chaotic system. That's definitely not a given. Weather is chaotic, but that doesn't necessitate that averages of those systems are. See 'attractors' for more on that regard. But you know all about chaos theory, so I don't have to tell you that.
From where I sit, climate is very predictable. It's so predictable that I could buy a plot of land grow the same kind of plant in it every single year for the rest of my life. Year in and year out I could reasonably predict how hot/cold it will be, when, and with how much variation. Lots of people have been doing this very thing for...well, years now I think.
So imagine that it's 1000 coin flips instead of 100. No, make it 10,000. 1,000,000? Since it's a fictitious analogy, you can pretend there are as many trials as you'd like to. Next, pretend that 95% of those flips come up heads. Welcome to the point.
If you have a point to make, just make it - you will find that people will be much more receptive of your message if you actually send it. So far, you're arguing against your own premise, and doing a supreme job at it.
The downside of that is that it leaves me confused and doesn't give me much to be smug about, since you've already done it all to yourself.
I made my point very clearly.
You said my sample size was laughable. I said it was a made up, fictitious sample size for a fictional analogy, so go nuts imagining whatever sample size you like. The imaginary sample size is not the point. The point was to imagine a coin that is obviously biased: it comes up heads 95% of the time.
Then I went on to explain in detail how you are wrong anyway. 100 coin flips is more than sufficient to rule out as fair a coin that is biased to land heads 95% of the time. I even linked sources supporting my claim.You chose to ignore that and omit it from your quote as if I never said it, as usual. You didn't say anything of substance about it or the part you actually did quote. You're just making incredibly ironic quips about me not responding to you. Look at your post. Where is the substantive argument? Highlight for me the sentence that you wrote that makes a point of any kind.
I'll respond to any sentences you write that are arguments of some substance directly related to my point. The rest of it is boring.