/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8103500
>>8103503
>>8103505
care to explain why that list of papers allegedly "supporting skepticism" includes so many that made failed predictions, or aren't actually peer-reviewed papers, or outright SUPPORT the consensus regarding climate change? do you have an explanation of any of that?

and you're STILL doing it!
Michaels et al. 2002 comes up with results consistent with IPCC projections!

despite your claims of a 1.7-2.6 K predicted increase from CO2 doubling, Schmittner et al actually predicts 1.4-3.5K increase. you can't even get the most basic facts right!

Masters 2013 predicts a climate sensitivity to doubling NOT of 1.98 K as claimed, but rather a 90% confidence interval of 1.2 to 5.1 K. Again, your claims are CONTRADICTED by the sources you cite in support of them!

Ollila 2014 is published in "Development in Earth Science", a sham journal put out by a predatory publishing company. I suggest that if you want to make a point, limit your sources to those published by reputable journals, not those that will publish anything if you pay them.

what does it say about your claims that even the sources you cherry-pick to support them often contradict them outright?