What you are demonstrating is that you willingly 'believe' one rather badly received paper by one scientist rather than the thousands of papers by the mainstream.
What I was demonstrating is that there are scientific arguments that make valid points keeping me unable to completely accept the belief of global warming as fact. That was one citation I used as example of one point. As I am not a scientist and do not devote my existence on climatology, I don't know how well received papers are. I can only assume that it would badly received as it makes arguments to the current consensus. Writings of Galileo and Copernicus were badly received at first. That didn't change the substance of the writings though.
It just shows further that you are not impartial but are looking for 'confirmational bias' for what you have already decided you want to agree with.
What you call 'confirmation bias'(which seems more like pot calling kettle black) I call having questions relating to the predictions modeled on incomplete and therefore science. Yes I go and look for research in opposition to mainstream opinion because it allows me to understand the subject matter more and gives the global warming advocates questions to answer. Those questions allows for more complete science and if anything should only solidify their theory. From those answers using complete science I will use in accepting either one position or the other.
I won't even debate the paper as you seem unwilling to discuss anything of substance. How do you dismiss the effect of a 40% increase in greenhouse gas level, by the way. Just ignore them?
You asked me a question about the 40% increase. I don't specifically know , but perhaps this scientist might:
"For two decades, French scientist Jérôme Chappellaz has been examining ice cores collected from deep inside the polar ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica. His studies on the interconnecting air spaces of old snow — or firn air — in the ice cores show that the roughly 40 percent increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the Earth’s last deglaciation can be attributed in large part to changes in the circulation and biological activity of the oceanic waters surrounding Antarctica.
By measuring the carbon isotopes in the firn air, scientists can pinpoint the source of atmospheric carbon during the millennia. Because living organisms at the surface of the oceans tend to take up the lighter of the carbon isotopes, 13C, and this isotope is then released when the organisms decay, scientists know the higher concentration of 13C is originating from the oceans.
Normally, the organisms die, sink to the ocean depths, and decompose, releasing carbon that remains stored in the cold, deep waters for centuries. But a growing concentration of the isotope 13C in the air during the last deglaciation indicates that this “old” carbon from decomposition was released from the southern polar waters, where the Antarctic Circumpolar Current transports more water than any other current in the world. Here, oceanic circulation is increasing in intensity and the deep water is releasing carbon dioxide at the surface."
And I would like to know if you include water vapor as a greenhouse gas and if so if that has risen by 40 percent, and what you think about the arguments that as far as greenhouse gasses go; water vapor is by far more of contributing factor in climate temperature regulation than carbon dioxide.
*******note: This is a question and I am not claiming anything through asking it, I have been informed that the primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.*********