Share this comment
Thanks for the comments so far. No case has yet been made here (or at The Guardian or elsewhere) in support of retraction or even meaningful error. The paper, as I read it, is consistent with the IPCC AR6 and USNCA 2017. The paper does have some editorializing at the end that may or may not be appropriate, depending on one's tastes, but …
Thanks for the comments so far. No case has yet been made here (or at The Guardian or elsewhere) in support of retraction or even meaningful error. The paper, as I read it, is consistent with the IPCC AR6 and USNCA 2017. The paper does have some editorializing at the end that may or may not be appropriate, depending on one's tastes, but that passed through editorial scrutiny via peer review so was apparently judged acceptable by this journal (which I am not familiar with).
I'll continue to solicit views. Thanks all who have participated so far.