Originally Posted by
JayBee
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf...ACMAj397y0bMCE
Here is an actual published paper backing up what I said.
You've posted nothing but incoherent rambling dribble based on your opinion.
I'm not a denier, I'm vested in weather science since its my second job and all... I stick to facts.
Thanks for making assumptions, it shows how truly ignorant you are.
Thanks for providing a perfect example of the point I made.
Real science doesn't have titles like "No Experimental Evidence for the Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change." This looks and reads like a Watts Up With That blog post. Wouldn't surprise me if you got it from there, actually.
This is a terrific example of pseudoscience. And it has not been published, therefore it hasn't been peer-reviewed. It's going to get laughed away from any reputable journal.
It's also comical in its assumptions. CO2 climate forcing of 0.24C? Give me a break.
You may work in weather, but that doesn't qualify you to speak on climatology. And if you think this is what real science looks like, you should stick to your flying job.
It's also telling that the first thing you can find to post as "evidence" is pseudoscientific BS. If you want to have a scientific debate, I'm fine with that. But we should stick to actual science.