- Joined
- Oct 23, 2015
- Messages
- 3,931
- Reaction score
- 1,260
- Location
- Oz
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Yep. The author is pretty stupid to be so arrogant he thinks that decades of climate science is pulled down by a five page unreviewed paper.
Even stupider are the idiots who believe that this paper somehow blows a hole in climate science.
Actually it's really only 4 pages. The 5th page just has the 6 (count them! SIX!) references. 2 are sources that they clearly didn't read because they actually contradict their claims (ie the IPCC report), 2 are their own unpublished manuscripts, and 2 are their own published articles in shady/predatory "Journals". The authors just completely ignored all the other literature that contradicted their unsupported rubbish assertions - as if they closed their eyes, it wouldn't exist. It was really embarrassing. Even a freshman science student would know better and would never submit something that bad.
But I can see why the usual little gang of science deniers on this sub-forum found the unpublished manuscript so so err... "convincing". It looks "sciencey" and tells them what they want to hear. LOP even said it "sounds like what he's been saying for years." LOL!
Last edited: